In an ideal world we have ______

[ksen]

In my ideal world Loren would provide citations when he makes a claim.

 

[Harry Bosch]

In my ideal world Loren would provide citations when he makes a claim.

Yea, Loren doesn't know that only those on the left are allowed to make statements without citations!

 

[braces_for_impact]

A diet soda that tastes like the real thing.

 

[rousseau]

A progressive tax system doesn't have to tax rich people at 91%. I would presume that a progressive tax system would look out for the best interests of all parties, and a bare minimum for the disenfranchised.

My problem isn't with progressive. Tax systems should be progressive.

My problem is with highly progressive.

Arguing the semantics of progressive and highly progressive doesn't mean anything until we come to a common definition about the two terms. How about this:

If you make a lot of money you should tend to give more than less, but should still be allowed to have a lot of net income relative to the poorest members of society.

 

[Petrel]

You're welcome to, actually. Other people have tried doing so in the past, coming up with basic objections as if they think those haven't already been thought of and addressed by myself or people much smarter than me, or setting up strawman arguments based on predictable assumptions about what I'm talking about which don't stand up; those arguments quickly tend to crumble. As much as I dislike people bringing up the same tired old refutable arguments over and over though, I sure won't shut down discussion a priori: we never got anywhere by expressing our wishes for the future and then shutting the fuck up because we don't want others to actually look critically at those wishes.

I'd rather you disagree (because you genuinely disagree) with my posts and explain your reasons and give me your arguments, than have you make passive aggressive comments that don't foster any discussion, and do nothing but waste space and slightly annoy people.

There is nothing to disagree about: you're simply stating your wishes - which happen to be different from mine in some ways and similar in others. I see no need for contention or aggression.

Obviously, your wishes are even less practical than mine. When I wanted to provide better housing for the masses of urban poor, you cited heritage sites and funding as objections.

You're still mass-evicting people; that's not going to be acceptable to very many people. Not to mention impossible; where's the government going to get the money to buy out all the owners?

The mass evicting part was an assumption based on nothing I said; the buying out part was based on present economics.
I can make some assumptions about colonizing "the solar system and beyond" i.e.
that building human habitats on other planets* would be rather more expensive than building better apartments in Chicago. (*Well, really, just one planet and a few moons are feasible. I wouldn't want to live in a bubble on Mars, but have no objection to your doing so.)

AI distribution of goods is a fine notion (which has never been tried), but I suspect implementation would meet with more resistance, even, than urban farming (which is being done already.) Nevertheless, given a huge change in the political and economic situation, it could be achieved.

•Have technologically driven immortality along with the ability and freedom to custom-tailor our own biology however we want.

This one, I find impossible to argue, as I have no practical idea what you mean.

 

[Emily Lake]

In an ideal world, we'd have no political parties, and people would use both pragmatism and principles when developing policy

 

[dystopian]

Obviously, your wishes are even less practical than mine.

I take a different view. What I put forth was indeed a set of criteria which have to be met for my ideal world. What you put forth were ways of *establishing* your ideal world. Like you said, more practical; and therefore more open to critique than just a general expression of desire.

When I wanted to provide better housing for the masses of urban poor, you cited heritage sites and funding as objections.

You didn't mention the poor masses; you mentioned 'retrofitting for increased efficiency', which crosses class boundaries. Retrofitting cities for increased efficiency IS going to result in the destruction of historic centers and buildings if you actually want to maximize the efficiency. Even retrofitting it to a limited degree is going to lead to mass evictions; which I can unfortunately guarantee is going to hit the poor harder than it'd hit the rich.

The mass evicting part was an assumption based on nothing I said; the buying out part was based on present economics.

Mass eviction is the inevitable consequence of seriously retrofitting cities for increased efficiency unless you're just going for token efforts. And while I want a post-scarcity model where money and what not no longer exists; we're still stuck with money for a while it seems.

I can make some assumptions about colonizing "the solar system and beyond" i.e.
that building human habitats on other planets* would be rather more expensive than building better apartments in Chicago. (*Well, really, just one planet and a few moons are feasible. I wouldn't want to live in a bubble on Mars, but have no objection to your doing so.)

A number of things:

First, most planets and moons in the solar system are feasible colony sites (especially with near future technology); it isn't just Mars like you're probably thinking. There are quite well developed proposals for colonies in the upper atmospheres of Venus for instance; and similar construction can take place in the gas and ice giants' atmospheres. Secondly; why would we even build on planets or moons? Orbital habitats would be much more economical. Thirdly, citing cost when what you're arguing for would carry similar massive costs seems a bit... odd. Of course there's cost, however people tend to greatly overestimate the cost of current space travel, which is to say nothing for the decreased cost once a proper and self-sustaining infrastructure is in place. Finally, we're eventually going to *have* to colonize space. Making our planet-bound civilization more efficient is certainly a noble goal, but it's not a solution. Even if we were to reduce the population to under a billion we'd eventually run out of resources or be wiped out by a global plague or asteroid. Space colonization is the only way our species will survive in the long run.

AI distribution of goods is a fine notion (which has never been tried), but I suspect implementation would meet with more resistance, even, than urban farming (which is being done already.)

What are you even talking about? Who the hell is resisting urban farming? This is the first I've heard of any such resistance. I can imagine some might be opposed to an AI run economy; but what those people fail to realize is that to some extent it's already happening. People may not like the idea of transferring the power to control or influence their lives to an AI, but some countries already do this to a much larger extent than you may realize. My country for instance, puts the lives of almost one and a half million people in the hands of what is essentially a primitive AI that controls a portion of our flood defenses. There's no human intervention at all in determining when the barriers close, because humans make many more mistakes and because if the barriers close for even just an hour when they don't need to there would be a huge economic cost; since it'd cut off one of the largest ports on the planet from the sea. So in that we have an example of a government/society trusting a computer program with not just a significant chunk of its economy but also its population; why wouldn't we trust it with the entirety of our economy if the AI in question was much smarter and more development than what we have now?

This one, I find impossible to argue, as I have no practical idea what you mean.

I mean, simply, a means of gaining immortality through science and technology; immortality here being defined as not dying from natural causes. There are any number of ways this could feasibly be done; and there's a lot of research going on right now that might yield fruits sooner rather than later. While I maintain a degree of hopeful skepticism, some researchers think we could achieve human immortality in as little as 30 to 50 years. If you find this hard to believe, consider the fact that there's really no hard laws preventing organisms from living for thousands of years or more; it's an engineering problem, not a fundamental impossibility.

 

[Petrel]

What I put forth was indeed a set of criteria which have to be met for my ideal world. What you put forth were ways of *establishing* your ideal world.

Oh, I see. I've misunderstood the rules of posting on this thread.

New list:
- no armies
- no money
- no religion
- no injustice
- no meat-eating
- no immortality

None of those, except the last, are possible to achieve on this planet, with its present dominant species - so that's okay.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What I put forth was indeed a set of criteria which have to be met for my ideal world. What you put forth were ways of *establishing* your ideal world.

Oh, I see. I've misunderstood the rules of posting on this thread.

New list:
- no armies
- no money
- religion
- no injustice
- no immortality

So, a bunch of non-immortals with no armies? Sweet. I wonder if I'll call myself Emperor or God-King when I take over.

 

[Petrel]

poor typing skills + quick reply = misunderstanding

 

[rousseau]

So you admit you want to tear down the rich.

[*]Progressive media standards

What are progressive media standards? A slanted press?

[*]An increasingly global regulatory system
[*]A highly regulated, and supported, science and tech sector

So you think the government knows best, people can't think for themselves?

Progressive media standards would be policy that enforces more honesty in reporting.

And I think a well organized government is analogous with the brain. It *hopefully* regulates and organizes the systems within the country in a way that is beneficial for all of its citizens while striking a balance between libertarianism and statism. The opposite of highly regulated capitalism is what's happening in the US, which is a horrible failure. I like capitalism, love it actually, it just needs to be controlled by (hopefully) neutral parties.

 

[Emily Lake]

- no immortality

??? Why would you want to get rid of not dying?

 

[Emily Lake]

Progressive media standards would be policy that enforces more honesty in reporting.

Just out of curiosity... why would you refer to that as "progressive" media standards, rather than "honest" or "balanced" or "fair" media standards?

 

[dystopian]

What I put forth was indeed a set of criteria which have to be met for my ideal world. What you put forth were ways of *establishing* your ideal world.

Oh, I see. I've misunderstood the rules of posting on this thread.

I honestly don't understand why you feel the incessant need to make passive aggressive comments instead of simply engaging people in debate. Did I say something offensive that warrants such a response? Pretty sure I didn't. If you don't want people to debate your views then either don't share them or simply don't respond to people when they disagree with and address your views?

 

[rousseau]

Progressive media standards would be policy that enforces more honesty in reporting.

Just out of curiosity... why would you refer to that as "progressive" media standards, rather than "honest" or "balanced" or "fair" media standards?

I guess to me 'progressive' isn't a loaded term that signifies liberalism, rather it signifies that we want to make things better in a pragmatic fashion without regard to ideology, with the end goal being a better life for all people. When you look at media, making it better towards that end implies making it more honest.

 

[dystopian]

Just out of curiosity... why would you refer to that as "progressive" media standards, rather than "honest" or "balanced" or "fair" media standards?

I guess to me 'progressive' isn't a loaded term that signifies liberalism, rather it signifies that we want to make things better in a pragmatic fashion without regard to ideology. When you look at media, making it better implies making it more honest.

I tend to agree. Besides, 'balanced' and 'fair' are terms that have really been hijacked; especially in the US as far as I understand. 'Fair and balanced' apparently means giving equal amount of air time to the climate scientist who'se spent his entire life working his way up to the top of the field... and the village idiot who thinks that Mars has the same climate as Earth and therefore there's no climate change. Fuck balance; just give me the facts, news. That's what you're supposed to be there for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

poor typing skills + quick reply = misunderstanding

My I acquaint you with the edit button?

It looks like this:

 

[Emily Lake]

Just out of curiosity... why would you refer to that as "progressive" media standards, rather than "honest" or "balanced" or "fair" media standards?

I guess to me 'progressive' isn't a loaded term that signifies liberalism, rather it signifies that we want to make things better in a pragmatic fashion without regard to ideology, with the end goal being a better life for all people. When you look at media, making it better towards that end implies making it more honest.

Okay. I can buy that, although I think you should be aware that to many of your readers, it's a politically loaded term . You run the risk of creating a knee-jerk reaction from some, who will automatically jump to "What, conservatives can't be honest?" Or perhaps even full attack with "Progressives are just as dishonest, they're just more weaselly about it!"

Of course, that all makes for good drama, so if that's your goal, then llama away!