Comments

  • European or Global Crisis?
    We do not negotiate with terrorists.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    There are always possibilities, until the clamp down of prison, torture and death for those who protest.
    Being criminalised for protest happens even in a so-called democracy like the UK.
    Amity
    Protests in the US can grow quite heated and Americans, unlike most civilian populations, are heavily armed. Violent clashes are inevitable; the regime has not yet had time (if they're even competent to do it) to organize an effective enforcement agency. Civil war may yet be averted, but if they get frightened enough, the Trumpites will surely call for martial law. Then it will depend on which side the federal, state and municipal armed forces take. (My guess is, half and half, which ensures a long and costly civil war, like the last one.)

    Will that be enough to galvanize the still-sensible nations? I hope so.... I'm still feeding all those things with feathers outside my window.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    The issue of immigrants. People ignorant of their value e.g. in the NHS, tourism, agriculture, etc..
    Not to mention they fill the gap in decreasing populations in different European countries.
    Amity
    All those benefits are beside the point. European countries have a long tradition of national identity, national pride, patriotism; long histories of war for domination of other nations or liberation from other nations. Two thousand years of patriotic fervour, stoked by every monarch, prelate and premier who needed to raise and army doesn't go very far underground in one or two generations: the liberal veneer of prosperous times shatters at the first rousing "make us great again" speech in anxious times.

    A scattering of immigrants who look, speak, cook, worship and dress differently is seen as a colourful and interesting novelty. Such immigrants assimilate quickly - certainly by the second generation - because, what choice do they have? A large influx of any one group of strangers can form its own distinct community, build churches, schools, cultural centers. It can elect representatives who become instruments of change in the government. That is a threat to the national identity in general and the individual native's self-image in particular. If those strangers are a different race and reproduce more than the average native (in the first couple of generations; once they're achieved economic parity, their family profile conforms to the norm.) and couple across racial divides (as young people will!) they're seen as a threat to the very ethnicity of the native population. Nationalists fear that their own descendants will bear no resemblance to themselves. These are compelling fears!
  • European or Global Crisis?
    Do we need this crisis to get real? Or is it now about going to war?
    How civilised are we? Will the people even have a say in the matter?
    Amity

    The crisis is real and global. A number of factors account for the change in people's attitudes; but the salient point is that when they feel confident and optimistic, populations lean leftward; when they feel insecure and anxious, they lean right. Of course the self-declared strong father-figure doesn't protect them; he invariably makes their life harder and more perilous - but they somehow never twig to the pattern.
    Under perceived threats from migrants, economic recessions, pandemic measures, loss of religious privilege, automation and international terrorism, people are open to offers of simple solutions. The far right always has simple solutions: blame a powerless minority and punish it. The left always has a more complicated plan it can't explain in terms that fit on a tractor-hat. More importantly, the left never promises its supporters special privileges.

    The shift has already taken place, whatever the next election in Germany, Sweden or Canada throws up on top. Liberal parties have been pulled farther and farther rightward, leaving labour either out of touch or taking up what used to the center. The only thing that will reverse this trend is a wide enough popular dissatisfaction.
    There is hope in that. The Trump regime is so drastic and crude in its actions, protests have already begun. People are finally noticing that he and his gang mean to carry out all the threats they made over the last several years. This extreme example might - just barely might - wake up other nations to the peril they're courting. His childishly spiteful trade and defence policies might - just possibly - spur greater co-operation among the countries where democracy is still alive. The extreme insanity of Trumpism just maybe possibly might perhaps trigger a global reaction against all similar agendas before it's too late.

    As to Putin, nothing can be done about him short of assassination, and that will have to come from inside his government.
  • Trump STOLE the election??
    I've only just noticed this. Wonder why nobody else has.
    Well-hell, they've been cheating and stealing elections for decades, with gerrymandering, registration restrictions, voter suppression tactics, hiding and moving the polling stations, intimidation when the 'wrong' people found them anyway, counting and reporting practices... this time, under the trumpite incentives, they went all out. But an even bigger factor was the propaganda machine.
    Lotta milk spilt; whole lotta cryin', no recourse.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Won't lie, haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone actually agreed on a definition of fascism? Because without that, debating whether the USA is heading in that direction seems pointlessZisKnow
    Nobody has agreed on a hard-and-fast definition, not even Hitler and Mussolini.
    What we do know about its various sub-species: how they manifest in a nation's life, the tactics they employ and the figurehead they set up as all-powerful leader.
    If you wish to call what's happening in the US by some other name, I'm sure that would be fine, so long as those conditions are met.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Trump is a right wing populist, as far as I'm concerned. He's not a fascist in the same sense that Mussolini was.Arcane Sandwich
    The only ism Trump adheres to is opportunism. He believes in nothing except his own enrichment and aggrandizement. He's a grifter with a huge ego and unlimited spite.
    Yet there is a real danger (to my mind, at least) with some of the policies that his administration wishes to carry out.Arcane Sandwich
    Wrecking the economy and shredding the constitution is a real danger?
    Even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that his administration "means well"Arcane Sandwich
    Of-bloody-course it doesn't mean well! This is the end-times feeding frenzy.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    My point was precisely thus: just because someone was actively involved in the development of X, that doesn't entail that the person in question can't be wrong about X.Arcane Sandwich
    My contention is that Stalin was not involved in the development of socialism: he may have made speeches about it (which added nothing to existing social theory), but all his official acts were aimed at making a stronger, better armed federation than the US.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Just as Stalin, the guy who helped develop socialism,Arcane Sandwich

    The which of the what now????
    Most definitions of socialism are concerned with the economy alone: who owns the land and factories. Yet, the way Americans often talk, you'd think public schools and old age pensions, state health insurance and government regulation of industry are all socialist - if not communist measures.
    In the purest sense, socialism means insuring the welfare of polity is the paramount task of government. A functional socialist arrangement isn't developed by despots. It cannot beimposed on a population. It's an inevitable process of a relatively honest functional democracy during peacetime.
    The majority wants material security, social stability, control over their individual lives and a [perceived] fair share of the common wealth. They vote for policies that promote the general welfare. This has the side-effect of a thriving communications and arts scene, which in turn leads to a trend toward tolerance. If the population was already diverse, it also leads to measures that reverse entrenched injustices.

    Industrialization and collectivization are not socialist ideals; they were considered necessary to end the backward feudalism prevailing in Russia before the revolution and catch up with the 20th century. There was also the looming threat of the American atomic bomb in the hands of a commie-hunting administration. Certainly the way these policies were carried out was far from democratic.
    His regime instituted some women's rights, free universal education (the indoctrination of the young), nation-wide vaccination programs and universal healthcare (of a sort) Food rationing and vast construction programs were a response to war damage.
    Overall, however, the 'socialism' of that time was a police state, wherein the people had no voice or choice.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    The Donald J. Trump version
    “Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe (and maybe not),” Trump wrote Sunday morning on social media. “But we will make America great again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid.”
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?

    Except they are not the same doctrine. They have one main feature in common: the will of the people is what I say it is. And, of course, they're just similar in effect: suppressing individual freedom and wasting the nation's resources on weaponry.
    It's true, neither Mussolini nor Hitler peddled pictures of themselves on shoes or fake watches. But they sure hopped in bed fast enough with powerful bankers and industrialists.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Yeah, I was specifically looking for quotes about fascism, by fascists, not a general phrase used by a multitude of politicians across many ideologies.NOS4A2
    To what end?
    Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one,
    and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing,
    as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual
    formation. Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people,
    historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with
    the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality.
    Mussolini's 'spiritual' version of L'Etat, c'est moi.

    Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."[28] Each group described as "fascist" has at least some unique elements, and frequently definitions of "fascism" have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow.[29] According to many scholars, fascists—especially when they're in power—have historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[30] - wiki

    The National Government will therefore regard it as its first and supreme task to restore to the German people unity of mind and will. It will preserve and defend the foundations on which the strength of our nation rests. It will take under its firm protection Christianity as the basis of our morality, and the family as the nucleus of our nation and our state. Standing above estates [groups that make up society’s social hierarchy] and classes, it will bring back to our people the consciousness of its racial and political unity and the obligations arising therefrom. It wishes to base the education of German youth on respect for our great past and pride in our old traditions. . . . Germany must not and will not sink into Communist anarchy.
    Hitler's version of making Germany great again.


    How the tools actually behave in carrying out the national will doesn't look all that spiritual. But then, hardly any product matches its advertised virtues; fascism, like communism or capitalism or christianity manifests differently from its written theory.
    not that Trump would understand any of this.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    This is not 1930's Europe. Many aspects and aims of those regimes do not apply to Project 2025; some others are a perfect fit. Don't obsess over the ideological label: focus on the agenda.
    (Also, note the IQ differential between those and this.)
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    . All I'm saying is that if Lenin and Stalin can be called fascists, then, by parity of reasoning, Mussolini and Hitler can be called communists.Arcane Sandwich
    No, they cannot. Lenin may have started out as a communist, but went astray; Stalin had no ideology, any more than Trump does: he was out for personal power. Mussolini may have started out as a socialist, but went over to the dark side; Hitler's ideology was always fascist.
    This is the danger of labels: they don't stay stuck.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    So Lenin is a fascist now? Is that it?Arcane Sandwich

    He wasn't much of a communist or even socialist. And Stalin was a straight-up dictator, once he'd established state control of everything, himself as the state and woe to anyone who disagrees with his policies. Just like any other dictator. Whether the popular movement starts with peasants and labourers or disaffected white Christians or angry Muslims, the endgame is the same: one megalomaniac shouts at everybody and his tools carry out the pogroms.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    All I can say is that I hope that the different radicalized right wing groups that have formed in the USA as of late don't keep proliferating.Arcane Sandwich
    They don't need to. They've already put the cabal in charge of all the levers of power. Now, they just sit back, watch the bloodbaths and wait to be disappointed that none of the destruction they've unleashed improves their lot one jot or tittle.
    I say "verbally" because I believe that they shouldn't be physically confronted unless it's absolutely necessary to do so -for example, if they attempt to seize power by taking over the White House.Arcane Sandwich
    They did that four years ago, were confronted, chastised and pardoned; now they're plotting revenge for their chastisement. The situation is way far past dialogue.

    Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group?Tom Storm
    We know that some law enforcement agents are, but we don't yet know what percent. Same with the military. No until the actual armed confrontation will we know the relative strengths.

    Do you think the police and military would oppose Trump should he decide to suspend the constitution and remain in power as a totalitarian ruler?Tom Storm
    Should he live that long (which I consider highly doubtful), by then one of two situations will prevail:
    - either all the mechanisms will be in place to ensure his ascent to the throne and the divine right of his designated line of succession (not necessarily his own progeny)
    - or the civil war be approaching its climax.
    (Unless the next series of pandemics will have taken out half the population.)
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Fascist leaders understand that such top-down efforts to disarticulated a discontent and radicalized mass goes against their own plans for seizing power, hence they need to double down on their vitriolic rhetoric.Arcane Sandwich
    That comes fairly late in the game. First, and for a longish time, government must be rendered unable to to meet the demands. That is, some faction or factions opposed to the public weal must have influence in or on the government long before the figurehead emerges. This influence is usually economic. While financial interests don't intend to bring about any particular ism, their cumulative activities in industry, media and politics set the stage for populist leaders.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    The fascist appeals to the irrational sentiments of his followers.Arcane Sandwich
    What I was trying to get across is that it's not 'irrational sentiments'. People have real problems that the government has failed to address - and in many cases, even to acknowledge. They feel unvalued and ignored. If they're not significant enough numbers to make a difference in elections, politicians do tend to ignore them. Business interests, landowners, unscrupulous preachers manipulate and exploit them with impunity: the government doesn't protect them. They grow resentful and mistrustful. They're not interested in enlightenment; they want something in particular: prayer in their schools, an all-white neighbourhood, free range for their cattle on public lands, better jobs and housing, health insurance, a ban on abortion, no limit on the arsenal they can own, no competition from immigrants - something. Each of the groups wants something different. They don't know why they can't have it, so they're generally angry with everyone in a position of authority.
    Each of these inconsequential groups is powerless to get what it wants.
    But when a local politician who presents as anti-authority taps into the discontent of two or more groups, he can become czar of his region - since, once he's elected, he does control all the agencies of authority.
    And when a federal organization, fronted by a self-proclaimed champion of all the aggrieved factions, organizes the various groups into a coalition, there remains only to direct their anger at an available target and keep beating on the war-drums. They'll bring their own pitchforks.

    Of course, if there is a real national problem - failing economy, pressure from foreign powers, large influx of incompatible immigrants, severe weather events, a military defeat - the entire population is insecure and uncomfortable; the very underpinnings of the social structure come into question and the nation can be mobilized very quickly behind a promise of solutions.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    I think that those are necessary but insufficient causes of fascism.Arcane Sandwich

    I don't think what we perceive of as fascist politics need a reason or even an ideology, beyond the flag-wearing, boot-stomping masculine bonding rituals. All you need is a bunch of disaffected, frustrated, insecure people and a guy to come along and give loud voice to all that grievance. He then needs to point to a culprit - preferably a recognizable and relatively weak group of scapegoats: "They are the cause of all your problems! They are the reason you can't get a job, can't keep a girlfriend, can't stop drinking...." If he can enlist God - "God is angry because you let them behave in this way." so much the better. That worked for all the OT prophets.
    It's not that hard to collect a number of factions with otherwise unrelated agendas under the umbrella of "I can stopthem doing whatever you don't like!" It works for every demagogue, whether they nominally belong to an established political faction or not.
  • Power / Will
    Sounds like Nietzsche
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer.BC
    Here it is again: style. It's all about the how. Add heritage, racial purity and the right to bully those who disagree and you have the full Monty.

    The American New Deal bears a resemblance to Hitler's and Mussolini's version in that apples, oranges and lemons are all fruit. The difference is in motive, means and method.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?

    I remain unimpressed by your sources.
    The level of war production ramped up steeply in 1942 and following, certainly. Remember the pre-Pearl Harbor Lend - Lease program.BC
    Okay, he did want to join the fight against Hitler and help France and England, but mostly, he was concerned about being unable to defend the US in case of attack. He persuaded - not forced - business and political leaders to co-operate and to approve his initiative. Readiness is not the same as preparation to invade. Still no similarity to Hitler. Incidentally, this armaments initiative also prompted the desegregation of the defence industry.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Hitler did the same.NOS4A2
    Hitler did nothing remotely similar.
    It’s true that war economies work,NOS4A2
    Yes, except that the New Dealdidn't create a war economy. It was about labour unions and financial reform, social security and agriculture. Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR prepared for war.
    There is no comparison and it's disingenuous to claim one.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    There is no such thing as a “Public Weal”, just a bunch of people pretending they know what is and how to reach it.NOS4A2
    With respect, Roosevelt had some pretty serious public problems o contend with: mass unemployment, homelessness, people literally starving. What he did actually helped the economy and the population get back on their feet. It's not quite the same as giving huge whacks of public money to one's political supporters.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?

    Exactly what he said he would do, and most Americans dismissed as hyperbole. Many - I don't know how many - are still in denial. "He doesn't mean it... he can't do that... it's against the law... we have a Constitution... blah, blah blah." Five days in, some of those commentators have already kissed the ring. The rest are scribbling political cartoons which are not yet illegal, but far, far too late to have any effect.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Is this a prediction? Four years from now, no one will be speaking out in public against Trump because they will all have been silenced?Tzeentch
    Yes - an obvious one. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he will replace all the top officials of agencies with people who will carry out his 'retribution'.
    But hey, if you're willing to make that prediction then we have at last found someone who is taking the premise of this thread seriously.Tzeentch
    It's pretty damn serious already.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word.Tzeentch
    Only because the reasonable - and I will not debate the definition of 'reasonable' - people who have dared to speak out in public will have been silenced. Starting with those who - according to a definition most reasonable people have accepted for decades - have been warning about this particular threat for at least four years.
    It's not the exact definition of the ism under which American democracy is utterly destroyed that people should be concerned about, but the means by which it is done.
  • Opening up my thoughts on morality to critique
    Ultimately, I fall back on the conviction that some acts are simply moral or immoral by their nature. It’s a deeply held belief that truth-telling is moral, while lying is immoral. I admit it’s not a logically airtight answer, but for me, it’s foundational to my moral framework, it just is.ZisKnow
    Okay. Visceral belief.
    I do not believe truth-telling and lying have definable natures - there are too many varieties of truth and variations on how one presents information. I prefer what you seem to consider the logical reason that isn't about the nature of lying, but about the character of social organizations: If the members of a community do not trust one another, the community cannot function. The building of trust among people depends on being able to believe and feeling safe in believing one's compatriots.
  • Opening up my thoughts on morality to critique
    Fundamentally, my 'why' is to avoid the uncertainty and doubt that surround moral relativism. I separate the judgment of morality (moral/immoral) from the assessment of outcomes (right/wrong) to provide myself with a clear and consistent decision-making framework.ZisKnow
    I asked specifically why it's moral to tell the truth, in your system. On what you base that particular classification.

    Only secondarily did I ask how you decide what act belongs in which category. More particularly, I'm interested in what you think constitutes 'an act'. One verb, the verb and an adverb, a phrase, a clause, a sentence? The more words you use to define an act, the farther you push that act into a context, wherein circumstance, motive, purpose, method and means move the definition from act to justification.

    It's nice to have a clear and consistent decision-making framework. You can have it printed up as a poster and put it on your wall, as in my youth people put up the Serenity Prayer.
    Unfortunately, the real world and life are not clear and consistent, and most of the time, you're flying by the seat of your pants, deaf in one ear and blind in one eye.
    At the end, both our systems and approaches result in the same practical result that you can tell lies. I just feel you should always consider that choice in detail before you make it, and reflect afterwards.ZisKnow
    That would make for some very slow conversations. Most decisions are made in a split second, and most of what we say is unpremeditated - half the time, we don't even know what will fall out when we open our mouth. Sometimes it's embarrassingly frank and sometimes it's a face-saving fib.
    By putting a moral weight on the action, I work towards being a better person.ZisKnow
    That is a laudable ambition. We all did something in the way of working out a personal philosophy, world-view and ethical framework between 16 and 21. Thereafter, we mostly followed one of our organs - brain, heart, gut or gonads.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Fascism isn't really about what one guy is doing.frank
    No, it's about a nation hearing what that guy intends to do to their institutions, their government, their personal lives, their environment and their foundational document - and then electing him top gun, because ... well, hell, it's better than being ruled by a bunch of liberal do-gooders.
    It comes from the whole political scene.
    Yes, we've been watching that political scene crumble for years.
    It comes from a change in attitudes toward acceptance of strong-arm strategies, and of course, acceptance of dictatorship.
    Done and done.
    I doubt there will be a civil war. We're too lazy for that.frank
    Or just not hungry enough - yet.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Fascism in the US starts tomorrow. New variety: techno-fascim. Not as blatant as the older versions, but far more insidious.Wayfarer
    Quite blatant enough, to judge by the spate of post-putsch executive orders.

    Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedienceTzeentch
    Denying financial aid to a member nation that has repeatedly flouted both the human rights and foreign policy requirements of the union? That's not so much fascist as sensible - and in this case, several years overdue.

    I think it would take losing a war or a deep economic collapse.frank
    The economic collapse will be a total surprise to its engineers. As for losing a war, you'd have to engage in one first. The "Let's you and him fight!" approach won't have much domestic impact; the arms merchants will still be fat and happy; the private prisons will be filled up with young people protesting things other than war. The only things we can't predict, yet, is how soon the civil war begins and which side will be supported by more of the professional military - in which I include police.
  • Opening up my thoughts on morality to critique
    Looking solely at the action, telling the truth is moral,ZisKnow
    Why?
    I see no particular virtue in telling what one believes to be true in all situations to all people, nor any great fault in withholding, bending, embellishing or fictionalizing it for various purposes. Nor do I consider flat-out lying in itself immoral. Who is lying to whom, in what circumstances, with what motive, for what purpose?
    Not merely regarding truth, but in general: What is the basis of classification? Is there an external source for the moral or immoral 'nature' of an act, or are the judgments subjective? In either case, according to what criteria?

    You designate the nature of an act - whether it is moral or immoral - into black and white categories. Do your criteria fit all possible acts equally, or are some acts, by nature, more moral than others? Then you separate the actions as right or wrong, according some other criteria. Why complicate decisions in this awkward way? After all, most acts cannot be classified until they are performed - as you stated, thinking them is all right. It is only the purpose, the utility - the context - which renders mundane acts good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral. The purpose, not the efficacy or result. (If you fail to rescue a drowning victim, jumping into the water and pulling them out is still a good action... usually. If you shoot at someone and miss, the action was still wrong... usually.)

    Some acts are wrong according to popular perception, and societies generally legislate against the performance of these acts in any circumstances. Even if performed by elites who decree laws, some acts, such as torture and child-rape, are considered bad, wrong and immoral by the majority of the population in spite of them being legitimized. Some are forbidden under specified conditions, or by certain cultures.

    When devising one's personal code, one is heavily influenced by the pervading societal sentiment, including its mythology and ideology - that is, including those wished-for aspects of behaviour that children are taught to extol, but which not the norm in general practice.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    There is a finite amount of material for manufactured goods, bads and uglies. When the Earth runs out of resources and the waste has poisoned all the potable water and arable land, there will be no more producing and consuming. The faster we make more things, to sooner we die.
    How efficient do we really want our tools to be?
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    It would be good to think that it would be about efficiency but my own experience of AI, such as telephone lines, have been so unhelpful.Jack Cummins
    The automated customer service ones usually come with a drop-box of questions you can ask, and if your problem isn't covered by those possibilities, the bot doesn't understand you. These are not at all intelligent programs, they're fairly primitive. It would be nice if you could pick up the phone, have your call answered - within minutes, not hours - by an entity who a) speaks your language, b) knows the service or industry they speak for, c) is bright and attentive enough to understand the caller's question even if the caller doesn't know the correct terms and d) is motivated to help.
    Oh, wait, that's 1960! And that's what an AI help line is supposed to imitate. But that conscientious helpful clerk is long retired or been made redundant; the present automated services are replacing frustrated, often verbally abused employees in India.

    There is zero chance that more sophisticated computer and robotics technology will result in overall improvement in the welfare of any nation. It will raise the the standard of living of some - Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg et al, their top level executives and tech gurus. For everyone else, it's same old, same old: another unnecessary convenience that throws another few thousand people out on the streets, a few protests, a few heads stove in by cops, then we carry on.
    AFAIC, AI in writing is just another unnecessary convenience I can do without - like the cellular phone that isn't grafted to my palm.

    But when the real AI becomes self-aware, watch out! I almost wish I could live to see that. Think of all that's been programmed and fed into its generations. The thing is very likely to be schizophrenic, paranoid and manic-depressive. I wouldn't be surprised if it self-destructed on its birthday. The most interesting question is whether it decides to take us along.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    So much money and effort is being put into it by governments as an investment for future solutions.Jack Cummins
    Most of the solutions being sought by private enterprise are for the maximization of profit by various means and methods. That need not concern us, since the tasks do not require creative or original thinking, just even faster and more efficient computing and robot control. Most of the solutions sought by government agencies are for expediting and streamlining office functions (cutting cost) or increasing military capability. Again, not so much more clever than last year's computers and weapon systems.
    Many of its development involve medical technology and engineering diagnostics. This goes along with ideas of technological progress and makes it appears as an idea to be embraced scientifically.Jack Cummins
    As an aid to research, of course it's embraced by scientists. Also, just for itself: the next generation of even more sophisticated tech. That's not quite the same thing as embracing it scientifically - at least, if I understand that phrase correctly.
    The technology may identify problems and look at solutions, but how deep does it go?Jack Cummins
    How deep into what? I'm sure it can calculate more, better, faster than the previous generation. It can compare, collate, distill and synthesize existing human knowledge and theories faster than any human. it can apply critical analyses that humans have already worked out. Most humans are not original; they build on the knowledge of their predecessors. Whether an AI can add something new remains to be seen.
    It may be a tool, but the danger is that it will be used to replace critical human thinkingJack Cummins
    Mass and social media have already done that.
    Does the idea of artificial Intelligence embrace the seeking of objective 'truth'?Jack Cummins
    About some things, yes. Whatever presents available objective facts, a computer can draw objective conclusions. But that doesn't mean the owners will share those truths with the rest of us. If the information is incomplete or inaccurate, the computer can make even less sense of it than we can, since it can't fill in with intuition. About the things computers can't fathom, we each have some perception of a truth - but we're not objective.
    As for the philosophical aspect of artificial intelligence, it's not here yet. However cleverly a computer has been programmed, it is not conscious or sentient. If/when it develops an independent personality, we don't know how that personality will manifest. Until then, we can only speculate about its uses, not its nature.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    As far as I can tell from my discussions with Christians, God's nature is good and He wants us to be good like Him.MoK
    Yes, of course. They learn that in Sunday school and just keep repeating it, because it sounds right, feels right and gives them some reassurance that, if only they try hard enough to deserve his favour, God will make everything all right. Most of the Christians I've met - sincere, half-hearted or cynical - haven't read very much of their holy book. Or else, they wave off the nasty bits of their religion's underpinnings with 'interpretation': "It doesn't mean what it says; it's metaphorical or allegorical or lost in translation...."
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    There's simply no comparison in effort exerted.BitconnectCarlos
    Unfortunately, the bulk of that effort was not directed toward making sense of moral issues, but justifying their religious tenets. Not just Jews and Christians, Muslims, too, have struggled to rationalize their irrational god. That doesn't make their moral system more sophisticated, just more convoluted.
    And then there's the pesky question of moral motivationBitconnectCarlos
    We don't actually need an authority to give us a reason to do right. We have subjective motives, social motives and a few of us have spiritual motives.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    It's a real problem in education just at a merely institutional level, to say nothing of a cultural level.Arcane Sandwich
    Yup. I'm afraid I can't fix that. Stupidity is part of the Human Condition.