I will devote all resources to developing a benevolent AI, give it a set of socially liberal guidelines with a focus at keeping society working and healthy, and give it absolute authority.
I'd do the same thing except give everyone a six-pack in case of death and make the AI paranoid and extremely aggressive towards Communists that threaten its "perfect" society.
I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).
Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.
Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.
Um, I'm not flat broke. I'm actually far from it. Thanks for thinking, stereotypically, that those who study the humanities are doomed to be poor, as if not having an abundance of money were a bad thing.
But good point. All human beings will be required to take four years of the humanities since high school still doesn't produce decent human beings.
If you fail at being a decent human being - you get to go back for another four years. Or rehabilitation.
True, that was trolling, I apologize.
The real problem is that supposedly liberal arts programs are supposed to foster an open view point on life. You are then taking that supposedly open view point and have come to two conclusions
1: Former liberal arts students, including yourself, are "good" human beings.
2: All other human beings are "bad".
This is, of course, your viewpoint, but apparently you hold your viewpoint in such esteem that you are willing to shove it down everyone's throat, at massive cost which will most likely result in massively increased taxes. I'm pretty sure YOU need to go back to school and figure out what you were supposed to get out of your education.
The problem with this thread is that it encourages conversations like this, where we all state our most aggressive viewpoints and then yell at each other about it. It's essentially a concern trolling thread.
As for something constructive, I want universal concealed carry. If you want to shoot someone, prepare to have your head blown off.
EDIT: Wait a minute, did you seriously say rehabilitation? I suppose this would occur in some sort of camp in the middle of the desert?
I think subjects such as english and women studies foster empathy and understanding for other human beings.
That's all I want. I used to be, what I would refer to as a misguided and kinda terrible person before my studies. Reading about human experience fundamentally changed me.
I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).
Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.
Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.
Um, I'm not flat broke. I'm actually far from it. Thanks for thinking, stereotypically, that those who study the humanities are doomed to be poor and also asserting that not having an abundance of money is a bad thing. At least I now know that you buy into "success" or the worth of a person being tied to how much they make.
But good point. All human beings will be required to take four years of the humanities since high school still doesn't produce decent human beings.
If you fail at being a decent human being - you get to go back for another four years. Or rehabilitation.
This is hilarious. Do you really believe that a liberal arts education is necessary for interacting with other human beings? Or that most engineers/scientists/etc. are incapable of doing that? And then you've somehow got the arrogance to call someone else out on their stereotyping?
[Edited because I thought better of poking the angry liberal arts major.]
I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).
Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.
Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.
Um, I'm not flat broke. I'm actually far from it. Thanks for thinking, stereotypically, that those who study the humanities are doomed to be poor and also asserting that not having an abundance of money is a bad thing. At least I now know that you buy into "success" or the worth of a person being tied to how much they make.
But good point. All human beings will be required to take four years of the humanities since high school still doesn't produce decent human beings.
If you fail at being a decent human being - you get to go back for another four years. Or rehabilitation.
This is hilarious. Do you really believe that a liberal arts education is necessary for interacting with other human beings? Or that most engineers/scientists/etc. are incapable of doing that? And then you've somehow got the arrogance to call someone else out on their stereotyping?
[Edited because I thought better of poking the angry liberal arts major.]
I was being hyperbolic.
But yes, I think reading about other people, their experiences, and their suffering increases one's level of empathy.
SkyGheNe on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).
Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.
Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.
Um, I'm not flat broke. I'm actually far from it. Thanks for thinking, stereotypically, that those who study the humanities are doomed to be poor and also asserting that not having an abundance of money is a bad thing. At least I now know that you buy into "success" or the worth of a person being tied to how much they make.
But good point. All human beings will be required to take four years of the humanities since high school still doesn't produce decent human beings.
If you fail at being a decent human being - you get to go back for another four years. Or rehabilitation.
This is hilarious. Do you really believe that a liberal arts education is necessary for interacting with other human beings? Or that most engineers/scientists/etc. are incapable of doing that? And then you've somehow got the arrogance to call someone else out on their stereotyping?
[Edited because I thought better of poking the angry liberal arts major.]
I was being hyperbolic.
But yes, I think reading about other people increases one's level of empathy.
But is it worth four years of everyone's life?
Honestly, I think the level of scientific illiteracy in this country is much more crippling overall. We have people voting who don't have a clue what a stem cell is, or what nuclear fission is. And this is only going to get worse as the world becomes more and more dependent on technology.
Even I wouldn't suggest everyone spend four years of their life studying for a BS in science in addition to their other education, though.
CycloneRanger on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).
Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.
Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.
Um, I'm not flat broke. I'm actually far from it. Thanks for thinking, stereotypically, that those who study the humanities are doomed to be poor and also asserting that not having an abundance of money is a bad thing. At least I now know that you buy into "success" or the worth of a person being tied to how much they make.
But good point. All human beings will be required to take four years of the humanities since high school still doesn't produce decent human beings.
If you fail at being a decent human being - you get to go back for another four years. Or rehabilitation.
This is hilarious. Do you really believe that a liberal arts education is necessary for interacting with other human beings? Or that most engineers/scientists/etc. are incapable of doing that? And then you've somehow got the arrogance to call someone else out on their stereotyping?
[Edited because I thought better of poking the angry liberal arts major.]
I was being hyperbolic.
But yes, I think reading about other people increases one's level of empathy.
But is it worth four years of everyone's life?
Honestly, I think the level of scientific illiteracy in this country is much more crippling overall. We have people voting who don't have a clue what a stem cell is, or what nuclear fission is. And this is only going to get worse as the world becomes more and more dependent on technology.
Even I wouldn't suggest everyone spend four years of their life studying for a BS in science in addition to their other education, though.
How will our knowledge of technology inherently get worse as we depend more and more on technology. Osmotic knowledge.
I would make all science students take four years of liberal arts (women studies, anthropology, english).
Because contrary to what they believe, they'll still be working with, and affecting, other human beings.
Just because you're flat broke out of college doesn't mean that we all have to be.
Oh, and apparently everyone who isn't college educated is incapable of interacting "properly" with other human beings. Good job dude.
Um, I'm not flat broke. I'm actually far from it. Thanks for thinking, stereotypically, that those who study the humanities are doomed to be poor and also asserting that not having an abundance of money is a bad thing. At least I now know that you buy into "success" or the worth of a person being tied to how much they make.
But good point. All human beings will be required to take four years of the humanities since high school still doesn't produce decent human beings.
If you fail at being a decent human being - you get to go back for another four years. Or rehabilitation.
This is hilarious. Do you really believe that a liberal arts education is necessary for interacting with other human beings? Or that most engineers/scientists/etc. are incapable of doing that? And then you've somehow got the arrogance to call someone else out on their stereotyping?
[Edited because I thought better of poking the angry liberal arts major.]
I was being hyperbolic.
But yes, I think reading about other people increases one's level of empathy.
But is it worth four years of everyone's life?
Honestly, I think the level of scientific illiteracy in this country is much more crippling overall. We have people voting who don't have a clue what a stem cell is, or what nuclear fission is. And this is only going to get worse as the world becomes more and more dependent on technology.
Even I wouldn't suggest everyone spend four years of their life studying for a BS in science in addition to their other education, though.
IMO, on a serious note, I think that a lot of that knowledge escapes us if we don't use it. I know I learned a lot of chemistry and physics in high school, and even in college - and conceptually I understand things, sometimes I need to look them up for a refresher, but I couldn't honestly spit some of what I used to know out at you at whim.
I think exposure to the things you just mentioned are important. But to be honest with you - I haven't used my two years of calculus at all since graduating. I think it taught me some valuable fundamentals, but I'd definitely need a book to perform a lot of it.
But yes, I think reading about other people, their experiences, and their suffering increases one's level of empathy.
I could very well agree with this statement from the experience I had while delving very deep into my books in high school, but although I'm sure that society benefits from the things that liberal arts majors give to society the cost in wealth and time to the country would be enormous for this to occur. The ideal is noble, but a curriculum done on the cheap, taught by a bad professor or TA, to uninterested students = fail. I also think you're underestimating the value of an education in every other discipline. There needs to be a mix.
Also, if you want to fix people, you'll get much more bang for your buck if you start out much earlier than 18.
But yes, I think reading about other people, their experiences, and their suffering increases one's level of empathy.
I could very well agree with this statement from the experience I had while delving very deep into my books in high school, but although I'm sure that society benefits from the things that liberal arts majors give to society the cost in wealth and time to the country would be enormous for this to occur. The ideal is noble, but a curriculum done on the cheap, taught by a bad professor or TA, to uninterested students = fail. I also think you're underestimating the value of an education in every other discipline. There needs to be a mix.
Also, if you want to fix people, you'll get much more bang for your buck if you start out much earlier than 18.
Yeah, I was working within our current framework. One area that I feel is neglected in public education (and even private) is financials. I mean, if I didn't seek it out, how the fuck would I know what a Roth IRA is? Or what a tax credit is?
But our schools just disappoint when it comes to creating empathetic people because teachers are afraid of being mentors.
Probably institute some sort of weird militerised autarchy in the deep South Pacific and see what happens. Maybe if we were somewhere near the rest of the world people might care, like with N Korea, but when you are several thousand kilometres from other people, then who cares right?
But yes, I think reading about other people, their experiences, and their suffering increases one's level of empathy.
I could very well agree with this statement from the experience I had while delving very deep into my books in high school, but although I'm sure that society benefits from the things that liberal arts majors give to society the cost in wealth and time to the country would be enormous for this to occur. The ideal is noble, but a curriculum done on the cheap, taught by a bad professor or TA, to uninterested students = fail. I also think you're underestimating the value of an education in every other discipline. There needs to be a mix.
Also, if you want to fix people, you'll get much more bang for your buck if you start out much earlier than 18.
Yeah, I was working within our current framework. One area that I feel is neglected in public education (and even private) is financials. I mean, if I didn't seek it out, how the fuck would I know what a Roth IRA is? Or what a tax credit is?
But our schools just disappoint when it comes to creating empathetic people because teachers are afraid of being mentors.
So, in conclusion, we have massively failing schools that refect and prolong the massive flaws that exist within our society. Our ideal government would come up with a cheap, effective solution to this that would result in a better and more equal society for all.
...
This thread is depressing. I'm leaving now.
I will devote all resources to developing a benevolent AI, give it a set of socially liberal guidelines with a focus at keeping society working and healthy, and give it absolute authority.
Someone is going to forget a semi-colon in the programming somewhere.
No more private schools or homeschooling. Sorry, your cult can duke it out with SCIENCE! if it wants your kid's mind. Also, major schooling reforms and tons more funding; don't know what needs doing exactly, so I'll consult the experts.
I have a major problem with this. It's not up to the government to decide where kids should go to school. Especially in light of the fact that private schools (whether parochial or not) and homeschooling tend to lead to better educational results than private schools.
Your argument here seems to be that you don't like the ideology certain parents teach their kids, so you want to teach them ideological views that you find more palatable. That's a pretty terrifying concept, frankly.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Honestly as disasterously broken as our government is, it would only take a couple of small changes and it would fix itself. Reduce the senate's lopsided population representation, make elections publicly funded, throw away the filibuster - just those three things I think would substantially improve the responsiveness of the US government
Communism for life's necessities, capitalism for luxuries. Food, health care, and education are free to all citizens regardless of what they do. Rations are very generous from the state. Gourmet food, the most-skilled doctors, and private education are luxuries and not given freely. Hefty taxes are expected but everyone lives well. Not great, but well.
The government will cover the costs of getting your ulcer fixed but they won't buy you a new TV.
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
3) Much, much more citation in the media. Make a claim, then have your sources available to everyone.
4) Not just free education, mandatory education. For everyone. Until eighteen or even twenty. Emphasis on global cultures, global history, science and the scientific method. Seriously people, learn about the world and learn how to be rational.
5) Voting on the major issues every two months. Every two months, a document will be produced for all citizens (probably via the internet) containing the biggest (ie, most campaigned for, contested or otherwise deemed important) issues broken down and explained clearly, with outcomes to be selected via checkboxes. Results MUST be returned by each civilian on each 'voting day', though an 'I have no opinion' option is permissable.
6) Many more video cameras and other government observation. Data to be observed only by permitted officials. People to get over it, and stop whining about a nanny state or 1984. I've got nothing to hide.
5) Voting on the major issues every two months. Every two months, a document will be produced for all citizens (probably via the internet) containing the biggest (ie, most campaigned for, contested or otherwise deemed important) issues broken down and explained clearly, with outcomes to be selected via checkboxes. Results MUST be returned by each civilian on each 'voting day', though an 'I have no opinion' option is permissable.
In theory, when we argue about politics it is because we want to convince people we are right and eventually make our way of thinking supported by legal structures.
That is the problem, though. We couch political discussions within subjective terms of what constitutes the "right" thing to do. So you think X is right; I think ~X is right. Then we debate and via rhetoric and nonsense we convince one or the other of our own position.
A more sensible approach, I think, it to simply derive those actions which are Right from the a priori truths of reality by which Rightness is discerned.
In this way our rules are not simply the products of preference and emotion (Hume) but rather are founded upon eternal truths of reason (Kant).
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I don't understand this one. How do you attract the best and brightest to be our leaders without a little corruption to grease the wheels? $100 haircuts, being wined and dined by the wealthy, collecting campaign contributions ... people don't run for office because they enjoy long hours and plenty of paperwork. They run for the power to get things done (and the perks).
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I don't understand this one. How do you attract the best and brightest to be our leaders without a little corruption to grease the wheels? $100 haircuts, being wined and dined by the wealthy, collecting campaign contributions ... people don't run for office because they enjoy long hours and plenty of paperwork. They run for the power to get things done (and the perks).
In theory, when we argue about politics it is because we want to convince people we are right and eventually make our way of thinking supported by legal structures.
That is the problem, though. We couch political discussions within subjective terms of what constitutes the "right" thing to do. So you think X is right; I think ~X is right. Then we debate and via rhetoric and nonsense we convince one or the other of our own position.
A more sensible approach, I think, it to simply derive those actions which are Right from the a priori truths of reality by which Rightness is discerned.
In this way our rules are not simply the products of preference and emotion (Hume) but rather are founded upon eternal truths of reason (Kant).
Two big problems there. I - That's not an easy process. Even Kant did not claim that rules of ethics were entirely a priori, just the structure from which they derived. We don't have a priori knowledge that someone should or shouldn't be guaranteed healthcare. II - This ignores the concept of self-determination as a political body as a right.
In theory, when we argue about politics it is because we want to convince people we are right and eventually make our way of thinking supported by legal structures.
That is the problem, though. We couch political discussions within subjective terms of what constitutes the "right" thing to do. So you think X is right; I think ~X is right. Then we debate and via rhetoric and nonsense we convince one or the other of our own position.
A more sensible approach, I think, it to simply derive those actions which are Right from the a priori truths of reality by which Rightness is discerned.
In this way our rules are not simply the products of preference and emotion (Hume) but rather are founded upon eternal truths of reason (Kant).
It's only sensible if Hume was wrong and Kant was correct, and that ethics is derivable from some set of eternal truths. That ain't the world we have the privilege of living in, however. As well to posit that we would be better off turning control of things over to omniscient, benevolent unicorns. Or Jesus.
In theory, when we argue about politics it is because we want to convince people we are right and eventually make our way of thinking supported by legal structures.
That is the problem, though. We couch political discussions within subjective terms of what constitutes the "right" thing to do. So you think X is right; I think ~X is right. Then we debate and via rhetoric and nonsense we convince one or the other of our own position.
A more sensible approach, I think, it to simply derive those actions which are Right from the a priori truths of reality by which Rightness is discerned.
In this way our rules are not simply the products of preference and emotion (Hume) but rather are founded upon eternal truths of reason (Kant).
Two big problems there. I - That's not an easy process. Even Kant did not claim that rules of ethics were entirely a priori, just the structure from which they derived. We don't have a priori knowledge that someone should or shouldn't be guaranteed healthcare. II - This ignores the concept of self-determination as a political body as a right.
Oh, come on.
Foucault and Adorno killed the non-developmental importance of Kant and Hume a long time ago.
The Crowing One on
0
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I don't understand this one. How do you attract the best and brightest to be our leaders without a little corruption to grease the wheels? $100 haircuts, being wined and dined by the wealthy, collecting campaign contributions ... people don't run for office because they enjoy long hours and plenty of paperwork. They run for the power to get things done (and the perks).
Are you Tom Delay's son?
No, you silly goose, and you don't have to be a corrupt politician to recognize the pattern that almost all politicians throughout all of history are crooked in some way. You show me a high-ranking politician who dressed modestly and worked in a cubicle and I'll show you a unicorn.
emnmnme on
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I don't understand this one. How do you attract the best and brightest to be our leaders without a little corruption to grease the wheels? $100 haircuts, being wined and dined by the wealthy, collecting campaign contributions ... people don't run for office because they enjoy long hours and plenty of paperwork. They run for the power to get things done (and the perks).
Are you Tom Delay's son?
No, you silly goose, and you don't have to be a corrupt politician to recognize the pattern that almost all politicians throughout all of history are crooked in some way. You show me a high-ranking politician who dressed modestly and worked in a cubicle and I'll show you a unicorn.
But certainly with the awful amount of corruption we have now, we're still only attracting a bunch of telegenic idiots. The best and brightest don't go into politics, period.
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I don't understand this one. How do you attract the best and brightest to be our leaders without a little corruption to grease the wheels? $100 haircuts, being wined and dined by the wealthy, collecting campaign contributions ... people don't run for office because they enjoy long hours and plenty of paperwork. They run for the power to get things done (and the perks).
Are you Tom Delay's son?
No, you silly goose, and you don't have to be a corrupt politician to recognize the pattern that almost all politicians throughout all of history are crooked in some way. You show me a high-ranking politician who dressed modestly and worked in a cubicle and I'll show you a unicorn.
If that's your frame of reference I simply feel bad for you.
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I think you're talking about a system with more proportional representation. Which is not that great an idea- those governments tend to be unstable and allow single-issue hardline parties to have a hugely disproportionate share of power.
3) Much, much more citation in the media. Make a claim, then have your sources available to everyone.
Or, what? If a media outlet doesn't provide sufficient citations, do they lose their freedom of speech? And, define "media."
5) Voting on the major issues every two months. Every two months, a document will be produced for all citizens (probably via the internet) containing the biggest (ie, most campaigned for, contested or otherwise deemed important) issues broken down and explained clearly, with outcomes to be selected via checkboxes. Results MUST be returned by each civilian on each 'voting day', though an 'I have no opinion' option is permissable.
Direct democracy can work when the polity is the size of a Greek city state or a New England town. But, there's a reason modern democracy involves the election of representatives. Expecting the electorate to vote on every potential bill is just unwieldy and impractical when it comes to governing a modern, advanced society.
6) Many more video cameras and other government observation. Data to be observed only by permitted officials. People to get over it, and stop whining about a nanny state or 1984. I've got nothing to hide.
Why in heaven's name would you be in favor of this?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
If that's your frame of reference I simply feel bad for you.
Don't feel bad. The thick skin I've developed makes me numb when 'news' of crookedness comes to light.
I remember a TV drama on NBC called Mr. Sterling. It was an alright show, a kind of upbeat 'The West Wing' where a noble and idealistic young politician worked hard too defend his constituents and bring peaceful compromise to Washington ... wikipedia says that show was canceled after 3 months. Maybe the concept of an honest lawmaker was too alien for Mr. Joe America?
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I think you're talking about a system with more proportional representation. Which is not that great an idea- those governments tend to be unstable and allow single-issue hardline parties to have a hugely disproportionate share of power.
Yeah, thank god our system doesn't allow single-issue hardliners a disproportionate share of power.
5) Voting on the major issues every two months. Every two months, a document will be produced for all citizens (probably via the internet) containing the biggest (ie, most campaigned for, contested or otherwise deemed important) issues broken down and explained clearly, with outcomes to be selected via checkboxes. Results MUST be returned by each civilian on each 'voting day', though an 'I have no opinion' option is permissable.
Direct democracy can work when the polity is the size of a Greek city state or a New England town. But, there's a reason modern democracy involves the election of representatives. Expecting the electorate to vote on every potential bill is just unwieldy and impractical when it comes to governing a modern, advanced society. [/quote]
But it's worked so well in California!
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I don't understand this one. How do you attract the best and brightest to be our leaders without a little corruption to grease the wheels? $100 haircuts, being wined and dined by the wealthy, collecting campaign contributions ... people don't run for office because they enjoy long hours and plenty of paperwork. They run for the power to get things done (and the perks).
Are you Tom Delay's son?
No, you silly goose, and you don't have to be a corrupt politician to recognize the pattern that almost all politicians throughout all of history are crooked in some way. You show me a high-ranking politician who dressed modestly and worked in a cubicle and I'll show you a unicorn.
But certainly with the awful amount of corruption we have now, we're still only attracting a bunch of telegenic idiots. The best and brightest don't go into politics, period.
All that is perfectly valid, and while it's a cop-out response for me to give, 'i don't know' will have to fill that spot. This exercise is one of our ideal government, not so much how we get it to work.
Further (very) flimsy response: Educate people not to be corrupt?
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
I think you're talking about a system with more proportional representation. Which is not that great an idea- those governments tend to be unstable and allow single-issue hardline parties to have a hugely disproportionate share of power.
Yeah, thank god our system doesn't allow single-issue hardliners a disproportionate share of power.
It could be far worse. The first past the post system we have in the US and the rest of the Anglosphere means that the ruling party doesn't typically need to incorporate 2-3 other parties into its coalition. Look at, for example, Israel, to see how much of a disaster that can be.
Proportionate representation has been shown to be a really bad idea in most modern democracies.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Further (very) flimsy response: Educate people not to be corrupt?
How would that lesson work out?
"Please don't accept that all-expenses-paid 3-day 'conference' to a tropical island from Big Pharma. They're obviously trying to influence your decision and that's unfair to voters. Remember: remain honest and you'll have the satisfaction of a job well done at the end of your term. Moderately priced cake will be served at your retirement party."
Further (very) flimsy response: Educate people not to be corrupt?
How would that lesson work out?
"Please don't accept that all-expenses-paid 3-day 'conference' to a tropical island from Big Pharma. They're obviously trying to influence your decision and that's unfair to voters. Remember: remain honest and you'll have the satisfaction of a job well done at the end of your term. Moderately priced cake will be served at your retirement party."
I don't believe you can have a perfect society without perfect people, so, mandatory genetic modification to give everyone 180 IQs and huge tits. Failing that, I'd probably spend my time reforming the structure of the government so that it provides the smartest people in the country the chance to engage in rational decisions and come to reasonable consensuses. After all, I'm not smart enough to fix the whole world by myself, so why bother? I'll instead spend my time engaging in a series of increasingly perverse sexual fantasies. Though I will retain the power of summary demotion-to-homeless for people whom I find personally irritating, i.e. Rupert Murdoch, Shia LeBouef, Joe Quesada
edit; ooh, and America gets British-style parlimentary Question Time! also no guns
Further (very) flimsy response: Educate people not to be corrupt?
How would that lesson work out?
"Please don't accept that all-expenses-paid 3-day 'conference' to a tropical island from Big Pharma. They're obviously trying to influence your decision and that's unfair to voters. Remember: remain honest and you'll have the satisfaction of a job well done at the end of your term. Moderately priced cake will be served at your retirement party."
:P
I said it was flimsy. :P
It has to be an ingrained cultural value that corruption is bad for everyone, even if I benefit from it directly or indirectly.
Posts
I'd do the same thing except give everyone a six-pack in case of death and make the AI paranoid and extremely aggressive towards Communists that threaten its "perfect" society.
I think subjects such as english and women studies foster empathy and understanding for other human beings.
That's all I want. I used to be, what I would refer to as a misguided and kinda terrible person before my studies. Reading about human experience fundamentally changed me.
[Edited because I thought better of poking the angry liberal arts major.]
I was being hyperbolic.
But yes, I think reading about other people, their experiences, and their suffering increases one's level of empathy.
Honestly, I think the level of scientific illiteracy in this country is much more crippling overall. We have people voting who don't have a clue what a stem cell is, or what nuclear fission is. And this is only going to get worse as the world becomes more and more dependent on technology.
Even I wouldn't suggest everyone spend four years of their life studying for a BS in science in addition to their other education, though.
How will our knowledge of technology inherently get worse as we depend more and more on technology. Osmotic knowledge.
Practically, in America?
Get money out of elections, entirely.
IMO, on a serious note, I think that a lot of that knowledge escapes us if we don't use it. I know I learned a lot of chemistry and physics in high school, and even in college - and conceptually I understand things, sometimes I need to look them up for a refresher, but I couldn't honestly spit some of what I used to know out at you at whim.
I think exposure to the things you just mentioned are important. But to be honest with you - I haven't used my two years of calculus at all since graduating. I think it taught me some valuable fundamentals, but I'd definitely need a book to perform a lot of it.
Also, proofs.
I could very well agree with this statement from the experience I had while delving very deep into my books in high school, but although I'm sure that society benefits from the things that liberal arts majors give to society the cost in wealth and time to the country would be enormous for this to occur. The ideal is noble, but a curriculum done on the cheap, taught by a bad professor or TA, to uninterested students = fail. I also think you're underestimating the value of an education in every other discipline. There needs to be a mix.
Also, if you want to fix people, you'll get much more bang for your buck if you start out much earlier than 18.
Yeah, I was working within our current framework. One area that I feel is neglected in public education (and even private) is financials. I mean, if I didn't seek it out, how the fuck would I know what a Roth IRA is? Or what a tax credit is?
But our schools just disappoint when it comes to creating empathetic people because teachers are afraid of being mentors.
So, in conclusion, we have massively failing schools that refect and prolong the massive flaws that exist within our society. Our ideal government would come up with a cheap, effective solution to this that would result in a better and more equal society for all.
...
This thread is depressing. I'm leaving now.
= != ==
/nerdjoke
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Your argument here seems to be that you don't like the ideology certain parents teach their kids, so you want to teach them ideological views that you find more palatable. That's a pretty terrifying concept, frankly.
Rigorous Scholarship
Honestly as disasterously broken as our government is, it would only take a couple of small changes and it would fix itself. Reduce the senate's lopsided population representation, make elections publicly funded, throw away the filibuster - just those three things I think would substantially improve the responsiveness of the US government
The government will cover the costs of getting your ulcer fixed but they won't buy you a new TV.
2) No money or religion to influence politics, and a system which gives multiple parties a real chance at power - not just the top two or three.
3) Much, much more citation in the media. Make a claim, then have your sources available to everyone.
4) Not just free education, mandatory education. For everyone. Until eighteen or even twenty. Emphasis on global cultures, global history, science and the scientific method. Seriously people, learn about the world and learn how to be rational.
5) Voting on the major issues every two months. Every two months, a document will be produced for all citizens (probably via the internet) containing the biggest (ie, most campaigned for, contested or otherwise deemed important) issues broken down and explained clearly, with outcomes to be selected via checkboxes. Results MUST be returned by each civilian on each 'voting day', though an 'I have no opinion' option is permissable.
6) Many more video cameras and other government observation. Data to be observed only by permitted officials. People to get over it, and stop whining about a nanny state or 1984. I've got nothing to hide.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
That.
That is the problem, though. We couch political discussions within subjective terms of what constitutes the "right" thing to do. So you think X is right; I think ~X is right. Then we debate and via rhetoric and nonsense we convince one or the other of our own position.
A more sensible approach, I think, it to simply derive those actions which are Right from the a priori truths of reality by which Rightness is discerned.
In this way our rules are not simply the products of preference and emotion (Hume) but rather are founded upon eternal truths of reason (Kant).
I don't understand this one. How do you attract the best and brightest to be our leaders without a little corruption to grease the wheels? $100 haircuts, being wined and dined by the wealthy, collecting campaign contributions ... people don't run for office because they enjoy long hours and plenty of paperwork. They run for the power to get things done (and the perks).
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Are you Tom Delay's son?
Two big problems there. I - That's not an easy process. Even Kant did not claim that rules of ethics were entirely a priori, just the structure from which they derived. We don't have a priori knowledge that someone should or shouldn't be guaranteed healthcare. II - This ignores the concept of self-determination as a political body as a right.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's only sensible if Hume was wrong and Kant was correct, and that ethics is derivable from some set of eternal truths. That ain't the world we have the privilege of living in, however. As well to posit that we would be better off turning control of things over to omniscient, benevolent unicorns. Or Jesus.
Oh, come on.
Foucault and Adorno killed the non-developmental importance of Kant and Hume a long time ago.
No, you silly goose, and you don't have to be a corrupt politician to recognize the pattern that almost all politicians throughout all of history are crooked in some way. You show me a high-ranking politician who dressed modestly and worked in a cubicle and I'll show you a unicorn.
But certainly with the awful amount of corruption we have now, we're still only attracting a bunch of telegenic idiots. The best and brightest don't go into politics, period.
If that's your frame of reference I simply feel bad for you.
Or, what? If a media outlet doesn't provide sufficient citations, do they lose their freedom of speech? And, define "media."
Direct democracy can work when the polity is the size of a Greek city state or a New England town. But, there's a reason modern democracy involves the election of representatives. Expecting the electorate to vote on every potential bill is just unwieldy and impractical when it comes to governing a modern, advanced society.
Why in heaven's name would you be in favor of this?
Rigorous Scholarship
Don't feel bad. The thick skin I've developed makes me numb when 'news' of crookedness comes to light.
I remember a TV drama on NBC called Mr. Sterling. It was an alright show, a kind of upbeat 'The West Wing' where a noble and idealistic young politician worked hard too defend his constituents and bring peaceful compromise to Washington ... wikipedia says that show was canceled after 3 months. Maybe the concept of an honest lawmaker was too alien for Mr. Joe America?
Direct democracy can work when the polity is the size of a Greek city state or a New England town. But, there's a reason modern democracy involves the election of representatives. Expecting the electorate to vote on every potential bill is just unwieldy and impractical when it comes to governing a modern, advanced society. [/quote]
But it's worked so well in California!
All that is perfectly valid, and while it's a cop-out response for me to give, 'i don't know' will have to fill that spot. This exercise is one of our ideal government, not so much how we get it to work.
Further (very) flimsy response: Educate people not to be corrupt?
Proportionate representation has been shown to be a really bad idea in most modern democracies.
Rigorous Scholarship
How would that lesson work out?
"Please don't accept that all-expenses-paid 3-day 'conference' to a tropical island from Big Pharma. They're obviously trying to influence your decision and that's unfair to voters. Remember: remain honest and you'll have the satisfaction of a job well done at the end of your term. Moderately priced cake will be served at your retirement party."
:P
I said it was flimsy. :P
edit; ooh, and America gets British-style parlimentary Question Time! also no guns
It has to be an ingrained cultural value that corruption is bad for everyone, even if I benefit from it directly or indirectly.