I see, I misunderstood what you meant. Yes, the analogy certainly works.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 126
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 126
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
You can put up a website in the US then anyone in the world can access it. You also can't reliably determine where someone is from. These two constraints make it impossible to both conform to these ridiculous laws, and to properly enforce them.
The speed limit analogy doesn't work because it is a physical law regulating physical actions. It would need to be a digital law governing ideas in order to properly compare. One is finite, the other is infinite.
Law is a human invented word in the English language. It can describe many things. One is natural law or the laws of physics. These laws have nothing to do with a social contract.
We can formulate socially governing laws derived from natural laws confirmed by mathematics. Those laws would be more reliable.
Ultimately, any laws governing human society are reliant on people subscribing to said laws. If a cohort decides not to follow those laws, then they cannot expect to benefit from them.
That sort of relationship has yet to be properly formalized and has a significant lag time.
AI can't run anything, but it can act as an advisor and analyst. It will need to be completely open sourced and transparent. It will also need to be local. Direct democracy doesn't work, a liquid democracy can. People have proven they do have the time with their social media use. The more active people can participate more directly, the less active can delegate their voice. Any and all votes can be revoked. All votes are of public interest and are open. If a delegated issue is in disagreement with someone's opinion they can granularly change their vote.
Executive roles don't exist via election, they are determined by delegated thresholds. Anyone occupying a role like that can be removed just as easily. Adjacent advisory or expert positions are filled the same way. Roles are divided into expertise and operate independently of other branches. A citizen can granularly choose their ideal people, and it contributes to them actually being the people. More preferred is they delegate to someone more knowledgeable than them that they actually know, and a delegation chain naturally selects the most qualified specialists.
With some imagination you can see how this could replace everything, because it is compatible with every system of governance that currently exists. The objective isn't to dictate, it is to give people a voice universally. If people want to delegate their way into a dictatorship, they can. They can also remove the dictator just as simply, and the world can transparently see what the people want & act accordingly.
With the cryptography primitives commonly available now, this is possible at this very moment. It is possible in an incorruptible way, that could likely persist for thousands of years. The only piece that relies on human trust is identity verification, but the branching nature of a liquid democracy allows for factions to exist, so the natural uncertainty contained within identity is irrelevant. Output is a better measure than identity. If a faction's output does not match their claimed identity people can isolate the collective and diminish their weight on an individual basis (I don't trust A's opinion on B, so I will weigh it less on C).
Anyway, just some food for thought.
I am not looking to argue. I just don't think there is a future for the law profession in a post-scarcity society. Disagreements will occur and negotiations will exist, but there are better ways to resolve them.
Ideally, lawyers, marketers, bankers, and politicians will no longer be needed. They can all be automated.
Preferably, yes. Ideally, we are all insured by a single payer system and in the case of an accident, people are compensated via that insurance.
No legal bank account needed.
Next point?
What is it you're an expert of, here? Game theory? Or do you mean you're a lawyer?
If you're a lawyer, you are not an expert on formulating a society. We've let lawyers run things for a long time and look at where it's gotten us.
The system needs to promote positive, human centric outcomes. Maybe having clients with that much wealth isn't fundamentally a positive outcome? Perhaps that idea needs to be reworked as a part of the oncoming changes?
In other words, anyone dealing with a certain threshold of wealth needs to hire human beings in order to raise their cap. I like this idea a lot actually. The bigger the clients, the more they have to pay if they want legal representation. For billionaires, legal representation would cost an absolute fortune and provide income to thousands of people.
Honestly I haven't thought of this pattern but the more I think about it, the better it seems.
If they are untouchable in the courts, then our courts have failed us. What should the people do once their justice is not being carried out?
We are not under their control.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Our government? It certainly isn't my government. I am one of those fools who actually believe in the bill of rights, in human decency, in preserving our lands for the future, in that all (hu)mens are created equal, and in the decent treatment of all life as our technology allows.
This corporate fascist government is not my government. My government believes in human compassion & dignity, love as the basis of leadership, care as the basis of policy, and defense of true freedom as a basis of force.
Government should maximize our ability to enjoy life, liberty, and happiness. It should simplify our life, not consume it. It should enrich us, not drain us. It should serve us, not enslave us.
No, what we have is not "our government". It is the same demon which time and time again rises within the collective hearts of man.
The leaders of government today are pedophiles and mass murderers who worship greed & ignorance. They are avatars of the greatest evils found in every sacred tradition. Whether you are Christian, Hindu, Atheist grounded in the pursuit of physical mastery, or anything in between, if you have any thirst for truth, you can recognize what they are.
Calling them terrorists is a disservice. Terrorists are at least principled. Their objective is causing terror to bring attention toward some cause.
The objective of these "leaders" is to enrich themselves and maximize their own pleasures at the cost of this entire planet. They will lie, cheat, steal, rape, kill, and consume anything they wish. They do not see humanity, all they see is power, all they recognize is strength. They are predators. You cannot speak to the heart of a predator, your only option is to overpower it.
So there are some old names for what they are:
Demon. Great Evil. Mara. Shayṭān. Ahriman. The Devil.
Call me old fashioned, but I personally prefer calling them what they actually are. Those who have an aversion to spiritual terms due to the trauma of their malpractice, or the rejection of them for whatever surely valid reason, consider this:
These words are not for describing a specific being, but a pattern of thought that dwells within the hearts of man. The thought has names that have been twisted into something separate, but they are a part of each of us, and we have a choice on whether or not to follow it. This pattern has the following shape:
- pursuit of greed
- maximizing selfishness
- spreading ignorance
- personal pleasure at any cost
- selective, opportunistic compassion
- egomania
- seeing others as lesser
Ignorance and greed are the chief characteristics of this pattern of thought.
A bit long winded, but long story short, my government dwells primarily in the spirits of the land now. What "people" have right now is the government of demons. It is their government, not mine :)
Let's clarify some things:
- This is criminal, not civil. The board of directors and executive leadership should be held criminally liable.
- polluting waters directly leads to suffering and death on a mass scale. It would not an exaggeration to compare it to a weapon of mass destruction.
- the board of directors and executive leadership are, therefore, mass murderers and should be prosecuted as such.
- the business should be dissolved and sold off. Major shareholders should be on the hook to repair all the damage done by the company.
Until we all start internalizing this way of thinking, nothing will ever change. Fines will not fix anything. The corporate shield is a lie. When your company kills people at this scale, your liability shielding is irrelevant.
Did you read what I said about AI? I don't think so, given your response. To simplify, as I skipped some steps, I was addressing some people who've thought about the problem slightly more than an iota. Some think AI systems that govern over humans could help address the human corruptibility / hierarchy problem. It does not.
There are an infinite set of realities. You can see them for yourself, but something tells me you'll continue onward in your lovely little cage.
Have a nice 3-dimensional day :)
Once "the people" seize the means of production, how will it be run & organized? We might need some people to coordinate between other people. What will these coordinators be called? And what if they abuse their positions? We might need some people that keep coordinators accountable, that audit their behavior, we can call them auditors....
If you aren't getting where I am going with this, I will just say that while your sentiment might make sense to you, this is a real problem for you to think about. Seizing the means of production is meaningless without a mechanism by which to run it. As soon as you trust other human beings with that ability, you create another class with authority, and thus, the road leads back to exactly where you are.
AI will not fix this because it is centralized compute trained on oppressive data. Perhaps if the data centers were publicly owned and the data was vetted, there would be a better chance, but more likely? It would be AI with human oversight....and yes, same problem again. If a human oversight committee exists, that is once again a human authority position that can be abused. And it doesn't matter because the planet has foolishly relinquished control of compute power to a tiny minority.
While I believe we are slated for doom (that isn't so bad, there are much better realities than this one anyway), I'd at least like to see a tiny fraction of intelligent resistance. This has got to be the most disappointing apocalypse I've ever witnessed. All the tools are clearly laid out and we've collectively chosen to be miserable instead.
Stop repeating the pattern. Find a new way.
It is simple.
It produces significantly less data. It doesn't have all the apps you are being tracked by reporting on your every move.
It doesn't have faceid, and probably has a lot of exploits (less security), but the data it holds isn't worth securing and it doesn't provide a non-stop datamine (more privacy).
Basically, instead of having a large safe filled with gold, you have a duffel-bag with your old gym clothes. You don't need security for old gym clothes.
We can all do much more than straws.
Edit: let me rephrase this. Unless you are a billionaire, there is nothing you can do individually that matters. The problem requires banding together and holding these people accountable. This requires honest communication so people at least understand what the real problem is.
Given we are barely at the honest communication stage and ignorance is running rampant, and that we have a fast approaching deadline before nothing we do will work, I do not have much optimism for the survival of our species.
Sorry, but I am confiscating your moral license if the straw you use is justification.
The straw you use does nothing but make you feel better, which I would argue is harmful. You shouldn't feel better for doing nothing when such large problems exist.
Your use of the right straw is akin to you killing a single invasive ant in a rain forest, and saying you did your part to remove the invasive colony. You then spend every opportunity talking about how you killed that single ant, all while the ants have already multiplied and utterly nullified your non-effort contribution.
Shipping barges, data centers, meat production, gas and coal burning are all many orders of magnitudes greater problems than what straw you use. Gas, coal, and fossil fuel use is over 70% of all emissions, so that should be the primary conversation. In addition, these are all growing in use. Talk about that. Put your attention and action towards that.
I'm glad I stopped playing after I finished 2. Everything after felt wrong, and I always felt the game was a trilogy. 3 just never really showed up.
Not sure how the game was so popular after they betrayed the original spirit, but I can only guess seeing things like this is difficult for people.
This reminds me of the spike in cellular biophoton emissions during mitosis.
Biophoton emissions, basically a faint glow of light emitted by living cells due to metabolic processes, increase sharply at the moment a cell replicates into two cells. It appears as a flash if observing these emissions.
There is a lot to learn about our ideal society by observing our biological processes. The human body is a good example of a functioning mass-scale social substrate. The representative sample that guides the body is billions of neurons. Considering a human body has around 37 trillion cells, and roughly 170 billion brain cells (86 billion neurons + 85 billion non-neural brain cells), that gives us around a 200:1 representative sample. For every 200 cells, there is 1 representative.
Fascinating, isn't it? Dunbar's number states humans can only keep track of a limited number of relationships. That number is a cognitive limit of around 150 stable relationships that we can keep track of. The limit's range has been stretched to 100 - 250 stable relationships.
In other words...the ratio of brain cells to other cells is nearly the same as Dunbar's number. It is reasonable to conclude, then, for a functioning society (because human bodies are far more functional than our planetary society), we need to have a ratio limit on representation. That limit is 200:1. For every 200 people, we need 1 representative.
For the US, for example, with 347 million people, a stable government would need 1.7 million representatives. Sounds crazy, doesn't it, compared to the ass backwards mechanism at play now? But think about it for a bit, and you will find why it is so stable.
That is too many people for an elite to control. It is too many to be corrupted. It adds redundancy. It adds direct accountability, each rep would have a personal relationship with their people, because it is within the Dunbar limit of what they can keep track of.
Something to think about.
You already elaborated.