I think the progress of weapons development will stop after WW3. After the war many people will have disappeared and others will be sick. So the further development of medicine will get a huge boost after WW3. The demand to live longer and perhaps eternal life will increase

No. Just asking. Clearly I think your view is a bit naive or maybe overly idealistic/simplistic. That is my first impression. If it offends it offends. That was not why I asked it though and should probably have not done so publicly if I had thought about how it may have been perceived.

No rules means if you have something I want I can kill you and take it with no legal consequences.

I am a ‘kind of’ anarchist myself. As in I oppose authority that contradicts what I believe to be right/good. I even oppose my own views when and where I can. I am not ‘against’ authority per se, just against blindly following rule/laws and figures of ‘authority’ because others do so and it is the general norm.

Pure freedom would be quite a brutal way to live btw - see above for murder. Freedom at no cost is not freedom. I cannot possibly see how it could be. If you believe it can come at no cost then explain how please.

I do believe that ‘anarchy’ is our base state. But from this state we necessarily have to create boundaries (which include rules) so we can live with each other in something approximating a state sporadically shifting towards ‘harmony’.

Conflict seems to be a very necessary state for learning. I think humans are learning ‘machines. Therefore any idea of nullifying ‘conflict’ would be the destruction of humanity. Conflict does not necessarily mean war though. We have managed to adjust to domestic life styles but in evolution of time we have not really had much time to adapt - but ‘adaptation’ is what humans are particularly good at.

I guess the counter this could be ‘why can we not adapt to be peace loving being then?’ I think overall we already are. But conflict will spill over into war sometimes. War today is less prominent than in the past so something is generally okay in that department.

Clearly I think your view is a bit naive or maybe overly idealistic/simplistic. That is my first impression — I like sushi

I've never been to school myself, so yes I can come across as quite simplistic. I've had no training in just about anything. Been sick for the last two years too and spent my time in the search for the truth and why there is war

Pure freedom would be quite a brutal way to live btw - see above for murder. Freedom at no cost is not freedom. I cannot possibly see how it could be. If you believe it can come at no cost then explain how please. — I like sushi

Pure freedom is of course not something that will be possible immediately. There would, of course, be the law of the fittest. But we can live up to that. Future technologies such as robots, AI, etc. will eventually replace all our rules and laws by providing us with all basic needs and, in the long run, luxury services.
Absolute freedom is a system that we must build. And that only happens by uniting us more and more in the world every time. This is just going through some kind of war. But that shouldn't necessarily be because of a war as we know it today. More like an industrial revolution. Because after every industrial revolution there are more machines that take over our tasks and there are therefore fewer rules. Because less rules are needed after each industrial revolution, there will be a little more freedom every time. Then the quest for more freedom begins again until the day when a new industrial revolution will be needed to search for the quest for more freedom. This will happen several more times in the coming century. And what will eventually be left is total freedom without any rules.

I would recommend reading 1984 by George Orwell.

Other than that I just want to point out that ‘absolute freedom’ means ‘absolute responsibility’. No one sane wants to even attempt to take on that burden.

‘Uniting’ people is often comes at great cost to those that refuse to ‘unite’ - often anarchist types. It is an unpleasant contradiction but it is all too human. Aiming for something better is obviously a nice idea … it gets bad when the ‘something better’ is different for everyone, which it usually is.

As for robots and AI you will many people here who would point out several things including the need for humans to feel useful, the fact that there are now billions more people on Earth now than compared to preindustrial times and that your view seems to frame ‘freedom’ as having more leisure time? You have surely heard of people who won the lottery returning to their ‘mundane’ jobs. People like people, and people like to work with people on something.

I do not see how releasing humans for activity and work would create any kind of ‘freedom’ people would want. An Eloi life of The Time Machine perhaps? Is that a freedom you want?

Either way I have no issue with trying to work towards something better. I am just moe conservative minded when it comes to shaking things up for the sake of shaking things up. Destruction is far easier than building something. Trying to build the impossible does seem to be a human occupation though and sometimes we do step beyond our perceived realms of ‘possible’.

Other than that I just want to point out that ‘absolute freedom’ means ‘absolute responsibility’. No one sane wants to even attempt to take on that burden. — I like sushi

There are people who have no common sense and are willing to take on this task. But these kinds of people are often portrayed as unfit or mad. Our real leaders are usually ostracized.

As for robots and AI you will many people here who would point out several things including the need for humans to feel useful, the fact that there are now billions more people on Earth now than compared to preindustrial times and that your view seems to frame ‘freedom’ as having more leisure time? You have surely heard of people who won the lottery returning to their ‘mundane’ jobs. People like people, and people like to work with people on something. — I like sushi

Now I'm going to come across as very simplistic again. But if we have more free time, we can spend more time making art, can dance all day long. Enjoy nature and life. Have sex several times a day. We will start doing things that we like. Man was not made to sit still and certainly will not give up the need to do anything. But the jobs we usually don't like can easily be done by robots.

Not simplistic, but it is an unverified assumption that people will ‘dance, make art and make love’. I do not personally see this as the nature of everyone, nor a particularly large minority let alone majority.

Robots have taken jobs from people who want jobs … but if we fast forward to some hypothetical future where humankind can live a life of Riley … as above maybe?

I enjoyed reading The Culture series of books by Iain Bainks which basically set up human civilization in this guise. A far flung possibility, or maybe not so far flung?

When it comes to predicting the effects of certain technologies it is hard to say much at all. We have certainly been heading in a decent direct for a while in terms of global poverty, disease, famine and child mortality.

I think there is a lot to be said for communal work helping social ties and creating a more peaceful environment. Someone will have to programme the robots … that is a lot of power in the hands of a few. Then maybe we just let the robots rule us? Would the robots then revert to Asimov ‘protection’ of the human species?

Having complete freedom could amount to losing all freedom (see Orwell). Having no responsibility for our basic needs is reverting to a childlike state … is that okay?

Anything taken to an extreme end starts to get messy quickly in my experience.

I think you're still too conservative in your thinking. We will soon merge with the internet. That means that one day we will manage to live in a virtual world. You will be able to change your emotions and your interests the way you want. Eternal life in the cloud. All your memories can be recalled and relive your life for example. In a virtual world, anything is possible. Really everything. Sees it as an artificial heaven.
There will be two worlds. The real (earth, mars, universe, etc), and the virtual world. In the real one we will have to follow the laws of nature, but in the virtual everything is possible. People who are no longer interested in the real world will then be able to spend in this virtual world.

Funny you say that. One of the last Culture novels Bainks wrote was about an artificial hell.

As for the internet. There are FAR greater shifts coming and you will start to see them bleeding into the public sphere over the next decade or two. CRISPR is real and will shake up everything.

Either way, making far flung predictions is just that. In the here and now ‘freedom’ comes at a price and nothing I can fathom will change that.

In perfect conditions practically ANY political system can be said to work ‘best’.

What do you think about the idea of democracy? Does democracy have a place in a free world or will democracy be outlawed? If there is democracy then necessarily some people will ‘lose out’ for the great good of the masses. Is this okay? To what extent?

Surely in a society that is democratic where people have maximal freedom they can choose not to vote on anything. Some people will vote though and impose their will on others (thus some freedom will be lost).

Then there is the other problem of ‘equality’. People are not equal. Some will have more ‘freedom’ than others. Is that something that can realistically be ‘solved’ - in reality or down some internet/AI rabbit hole? Are we talking Matrix movie level supplication to the machines rather than to our own free will and authorship over our lives?

Take any idea to the extremes and it will turn pretty bad pretty quickly

What do you think about the idea of democracy? Does democracy have a place in a free world or will democracy be outlawed? If there is democracy then necessarily some people will ‘lose out’ for the great good of the masses. Is this okay? To what extent? — I like sushi

Democracy will eventually disappear, of course. I think the meaning of democracy is that the majority of the people decide. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People are influenced from the moment they are born by the ideologies of their parents, teachers, religion and their environment. Other people actually decide what upbringing you get and what ultimately makes you who you are and what you stand for. And the more people get the same upbringing, the more people there are with the same opinion. The largest group then wins the democratic elections and the rest are left behind.
The biggest example is about religion. For many years, Christianity has been the largest religion with the most members. And because the vast majority of the world is democratic, so Christianity and their way of living and thinking are the power in the world. But that could change. The 'white' Christians no longer reproduce as they once were. The 'different colored' Muslims, on the other hand, reproduce more than anyone else. They are converting Christians to Islam all over the world.
So if we continue to maintain democracy and just keep doing what we are doing now, then soon the Muslim ideology will be in the majority and they will win the elections.
I don't support any religion because it blocks progress. But if we continue to maintain democracy, religion will continue to exist and we will never make real progress. Then we will always have to keep hoping until someone stands up and manages to make progress.
I think democracy is simply an illusion of freedom. It gives us the right to freedom, but only if you follow the largest group.
Of course I don't know what the solution is. There is so much to think about. But I am not a fan of democracy. But not communism either. There must be something different, something completely new.

I’ll let someone else point out the problems in that before I do.

Have fun chat later maybe.

Indeed. If you see that there were hundreds of mini-states in Europe before. Because of the Thirty Years' War, the countries started to merge and there was more unification. There was peace. Much later tensions arose again. Until Napoleon came. Another war and the result was that treaties were agreed upon. Another unification of the international system. There was peace again. Much later tensions arose again. Until Hitler got involved. Back war, and what kind. And as a result came the european union, nato, etc. again unification of the international system. There was peace. — Vincent

Have you ever watched the old sci-fi series Babylon 5 by Joseph Michael Straczynski?
Do you know his story of 'the first ones?' The Vorlons and the Shadows or the politics of order against the politics of chaos?

I think the progress of weapons development will stop after WW3. After the war many people will have disappeared and others will be sick. So the further development of medicine will get a huge boost after WW3. The demand to live longer and perhaps eternal life will increase — Vincent

I wonder what kinda personality a soothsayer worth their salt has. Gloomy Gus-Nervous Nelly OR Dr. Pangloss-Polyanna? Which personality is more likely to make correct predictions?

No never heard of it. What is it about?

I wonder what kinda personality a soothsayer worth their salt has. Gloomy Gus-Nervous Nelly OR Dr. Pangloss-Polyanna? — Agent Smith

What do you mean?

Which personality is more likely to make correct predictions? — Agent Smith

I think you have to have a very special personality to predict something as accurately as possible. Kind of like a psychopath. Someone who can pretend to believe in something and not get caught up in it like most do. And then think about it further without having to believe in it. If you can and do that, you will end up with very strange things.
That sounds very chaotic, but I think I'm pretty good at it. But I can only prove it if it turns out to be true. If none of it is true, then I'm just an imaginer.

No never heard of it. What is it about? — Vincent

I think you would really enjoy the story. The Vorlons and the Shadows are almost immortal.
They are amongst the first races to gain sentience in the Universe (as we may be now).
These two races are amongst the 'giants of the Universe,' The humans and other races depicted in the series such as the Minbari, the Centauri, the Narn etc are like insects in comparison.
The Vorlons and Shadows are the 'steward races' of our Galaxy and are here to 'guide' the younger races. But they are bitter enemies. The shadows believe in creating chaos and war because although some races get destroyed and billions die, the races who win become stronger and they progress much faster as a 'final outcome,' and then the Shadows will continue to manipulate the younger races so that they war with each other again. (sound familiar?)
The Vorlons believe in order. They promote obedience, working together, making alliances. They encourage the younger races to deify the various messianic manifestations they make to the younger races. They wish the younger races to love them and need them whereas the Shadows require fear and respect. (again, sound familiar?)
The younger races are the pawns between these two immensely powerful 'first ones'. And so the story develops.....
The Vorlon and Shadow stories are the main theme throughout series 1 to 4 but in series 1 they are only hinted at. In series 2, 3, and 4 they come to the fore. Series 5 (the last series) is more epilogue to the shadows and Vorlons. It's my fav sci-fi series ever but I just think it relates to your world view in interesting ways and if you watched it, you may balance your viewpoints differently perhaps.

You lost me!

Wow, that does sound interesting. I'm going to find it where I can watch it and then check it out. I may be able to learn something from it. thanks

You lost me! — Agent Smith

I understand. :sweat: I have quite a chaotic way of thinking and explaining

Wow, that does sound interesting. I'm going to find it where I can watch it and then check it out. I may be able to learn something from it. thanks — Vincent

You can buy each series from amazon for under £10. I have spend a fair amount of money buying the whole series first on VHS tape and then on DVD and then again on Blue ray and then I bought the spin off movies. and then I found the whole consolidated box set, originally priced at around £150 in a charity shop for a f****** tenner! £10, I bought it of course and gave my old box sets to my brother-in-law.
aaarrggggh! a tenner!!! :rage: First class condition as well.

You might be interested to google 'Marshall Rosenberg'. I started this thread on him a while back.

Non violent Communication

Is world peace possible? And what will that look like? — Vincent

From what I understand about nuclear war, there would be very few people out of the world population left. And WW3 would most likely go nuclear. I mean, that could be an anarchy, but it's unlikely all the little enclaves of survivors would go the same way, to me.

Thinking on the recent situation in Ukraine, I've basically decided that I'm not as against war as I am against nuclear weapons. Wars have happened throughout history. They are horrible. But they won't be as horrible as wiping out most of the human race, and the biosphere. Unfortunately, the powers that be won't just fight conventional wars. They think they are making their own side safer by having nuclear weapons, but this just serves to make the overall situation more dangerous.

Just look at Ukraine now. They are going through some horrendous shit. But if the alternative were nuclear obliteration, what would they choose (most of them at least, I hope). That's why it seems to make no sense to me why Finland and Sweden are trying to protect themselves by joining NATO. You have to juggle in that part of the world, repelling possible attacks from Russia, and not contributing to a situation which leads to NATO and Russia fighting directly. Joining NATO helps the second but doesn't help the first, at least in my view.

World peace may come in time. Who knows what may happen over aons. Read some science fiction to get the long view - that is my advice. I suggest First and Last Men by Olaf Stapledon.

I'd say only by eliminated all people from the face of the earth. So no, conflict is a part of human nature and it's not going anywhere. Moreover, if you are able to keep some population safe and wealthy for a few generations, like the EU, they become weak and start fighting over imaginary stuff or someone with a stronger willpower would roll in and take them over.

So the people who roll in aren't safe or wealthy, and that gives them willpower to take over

I wish my experience of people not having safety or wealth was like this.

Let's be systematic and keep it as simple as possible. Given that conflict is bottom line aggravated disagreement, we must find something the whole world agrees on: The sky is blue...on sunny days (we gotta be careful now). Let's start from there shall we? :snicker:

Is world peace possible? — Vincent

Yes.

And what will it look like. — Vincent

It will look like a self-soothing solipsist alone in a room.

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit alone in a silent room. — Pascal

keep it as simple as possible. — Agent Smith

I agree with that :razz: I didn't go to school myself, so I don't understand most of what is said here

we must find something the whole world agrees on — Agent Smith

There is something that everyone in the world likes. It is not money or possessions or whathever. It's sex, drugs and music!
Everyone loves sex. If we introduce young children from an early age to the pleasures that you can get from our bodies, men and women will love each other more and harm each other much less later in life.
Everyone loves drugs, just those who haven't tried them yet. Alcohol and caffeine are also a drug in my eyes. Who doesn't like to drink a good fresh beer. Science needs to better research alcohol and drugs and see their benefits.
But music is something completely different. Who doesn't like going hard to good music. Did you know that even plants grow better when there is music. No invention of man makes plants grow better. Fertilizer is doping for plants and harms the environment, so that doesn't count.

If we succeed in building a society based on sex, drugs and music, and get rid of the competition/oppression systems like money and religion, the rest will come naturally. People will live much healthier and happier lives. But everyone says I have devilish thoughts and it will never work.
Is this something we can move on to?