SH suggested that I created a companion poll for that which already existed on the 16 desires thread, but I did not seem to be able to do it - may a mod can move this one over. In any event here it is those have already voted on the positive four can now vote on the negative four.
-
OK, it's on.
The four least desires poll
- Thread starter Da Blob
- Start date
Adymus
Banned
How is that even relevant?
So people are not supposed to strive to create a better world at all, just because some people's views of better worlds oppress others?
PS:
Power, Honor, Vengeance, Physical Exercise
Cognisant
cackling in the trenches
- Local time
- Yesterday 8:03 PM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 11,155
Yes, I got a bite!
Imagine that... would you call it a "better" world?
Well my point was the ideals are naive delusions based solely upon subjective biases, or in more straightforward terms, we all desire a perfect world but fail to realise that we're envisioning different worlds, hence the seemingly endless cycle of pointless conflict we're all accustomed to. So yeah I suppose you could interpret it that way, because ironically if we all stopped fighting over our individual ideals and only imposed ourselves to the extent that doing so doesn’t suppress the ideals of others, then this would be a world without conflict.
Imagine that... would you call it a "better" world?
Adymus
Banned
Without conflict, and without advancement.
Our high levels of knowledge, technology, and societal systems are all thanks to idealism. If no one attempted to turn their ideals into reality we would still be in the stone age. Sure, every now and then someone comes up with an ideal world that is damaging to the species, but the ideals of others stomp theirs out.
Do we live in a better world? Yes, definitely. Conflict would have occurred regardless of out ideals, survival is conflict, so conflict being a byproduct of idealism is not a substantial drawback. Idealism gives us a drive to live longer, better, healthier, and happier. Because of this drive, we are a more successful species.
Cognisant
cackling in the trenches
- Local time
- Yesterday 8:03 PM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 11,155
"only imposed ourselves to the extent that doing so doesn’t suppress the ideals of others" does not equate to "If no one attempted to turn their ideals into reality".
For example if I wanted to be the creator of strong-AI I'm free to do so, because nobody has the explicit ideal that I don't, and even though others may have the ideal of becoming the first creator of AI they have no right to stop me, after all I'm not suppressing them, their failure to be first is their fault and theirs alone.
Sounds unnecessarily violent, but we're accustomed to it aren’t we?
You're assuming one's survival is dependant upon another's death.
So am I to assume you think cannibalism & murder are natural?
Really? (were are you getting these supposed facts of yours?)
I posit that a society without conflict is inherently more efficient & cooperative, thus overall it'll be healthier, happier, wealthier, and well, just better.
Also you strawman me by saying society would be without ideals, I'm not saying that, I'm saying society should be without idealism, which is having ideals and trying to impose them upon the world without regard for the ideals of others.
Adymus
Banned
What if people's ideals are already being imposed? People will always be oppressed, not even by another's idealism, but from the greed, control, and need to expand.
You are still going to create discord. People would lose jobs now that they can be replaced by a machine with Strong AI. The competing manufacturers of the last strongest AI would lose money from being beaten out by a new competitor. A change that massive would probably be good in the long run, but it will definitely impose itself on others, even if it is indirectly.
Of course we are accustomed to it, it is how we grow, it is how we have always grown. What you are trying to illustrate is a completely impossible scenario. Idealism is just a part of human nature, and it has taken us as far as we have come. The American Revolution, The French Revolution, The Civil Rights movement, all of that came from idealism, and it has massively increased our standards of living. People were and are being oppressed, and the only way to stop that was and is to fight. They weren't really even fighting other ideologues, but tyrants and greedy aristocrats.
It is, sometimes it's human beings, some times it is animals, sometimes it is just plants. But life cannot sustain itself without taking life, that is just the nature of nature. And yes, murder and cannibalism are natural, if it wasn't natural it wouldn't happen. One cannot be above nature, if a kind of behavior is commonly occurring, then it is in our nature to do this.
Really? You're seriously going to play the 'where are your sources' card? Same place you are getting yours, fucking no where, it's a philosophical debate.
Okay if you can get everyone to magically agree on everything and act as more of a hive than a society, then yeah, I guess it would be more efficient and cooperative. Your idea is like communism, sounds great on paper but it could never realistically work that way; and as ironic as it is, it is naive and idealistic to think it could work on a massive scale. Secondly, a society like that would never advance because it has no incentive to. Not to mention the change of advancement would introduce a certain chaos into the society that would surely create some sort of conflict. A society like your could exist on a small scale, however if you asked me which is a more successful community: a Small one where everyone was happy, and a massive one where conflict exists. I'd say the massive one, the key to a species survival is expansion, and if we are doing it then we are doing something right.
Again, you run into the snag of getting everyone to agree on everything. In order to advance, you have to impose your will on others. Yes, this certainly creates conflict, but it yields what we have now, the most successful species on the planet.
Cognisant
cackling in the trenches
- Local time
- Yesterday 8:03 PM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 11,155
...very clever wording.
To create a world without idealism one would need to suppress the ideal of idealism itself assuming anyone actually values idealism for entirely its own sake, and keep in mind that a suppression of idealism is not a suppression of ideals themselves, merely a suppression of the pursuit of those ideals to an extent that directly results in conflict. Anyway if someone does value idealism for entirely its own sake then I question why they're doing so, what possible reason do they have to value something that directly results in objectively unnecessary conflict and by extension causes human suffering?
The mind of someone who seeks pointless suffering eludes my comprehension and because such suffering is also imparted upon others I believe such people would warrant the label "evil".
To create a world without idealism one would need to suppress the ideal of idealism itself assuming anyone actually values idealism for entirely its own sake, and keep in mind that a suppression of idealism is not a suppression of ideals themselves, merely a suppression of the pursuit of those ideals to an extent that directly results in conflict. Anyway if someone does value idealism for entirely its own sake then I question why they're doing so, what possible reason do they have to value something that directly results in objectively unnecessary conflict and by extension causes human suffering?
The mind of someone who seeks pointless suffering eludes my comprehension and because such suffering is also imparted upon others I believe such people would warrant the label "evil".
Beat Mango
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 6:03 PM
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,499
I desire all those things... well, I would discard romance, if it didn't include sex. And I'm completely at a loss at how eating is construed as a desire rather than a need :/
Adymus
Banned
The line between having ideals and being idealistic (As you are defining it) is not as clear as you seem to think. The human experience is an entirely subjective experience, and the ideals one carries will differ from person to person. In order to create a world where ideals are never being imposed on others, you would have to have everyone's ideals be harmonious to everyone else (Which is an impossible scenario, as we do not have objective perceptions). The only way this could work is if human beings were mindless ants that had no real ideals to begin with.
Nobody is idealistic for the sake of being idealistic. Idealism (As you are defining it) comes from the perception that the external world can be improved upon. The thing is, everyone has their own subjective worldview of how things should be run (Ideals if you will), and conflict arises when their worldviews clash. So to have a community free of idealism, you would have to get rid of the element of independent mindedness that people have, and we would have to share some hive consciousness that is only listening to a single and impersonal signal.
Although I would say it's a pointless thought as this just is not how human beings work.
If people all have subjective worldviews, then they all have subjective ideals. So for any ideal to come to fruition, it must conflict with another person's ideals. This is why I equated Idealism and Ideals as the same thing originally, because you cannot realistically have one without the other.
There is only one objective ideal that I can think of, and that is human survival. "Objectively unnecessary conflict" is an oxymoron, there is nothing objective about recognizing what is and is not necessary conflict. Idealism has created conflict, but it has also lead to our current status as a successful species. A colony of people that had no independent thoughts and acted in complete harmony, might be efficient, but it would not be inventive, or versatile, or adaptive, it would pretty much just be ants.
Adymus
Banned
This is exactly why there are booms in technology during times of war.
Geminii
Consultant, inventor, project innovator
Power's an interesting one. While not many of us may seek it for its own sake, it can be a useful tool and may be necessary to accumulate prior to attempting something more interesting.
It's a pity that social/economic/legal power or influence can't be bought at the local store, so that you could just buy as much as you needed when you needed it.
"Hmm, I've got to speak at that conference on the weekend. Got my suit, shiny shoes, slideshow on USB drive... better pick up some spare charisma and influence in case there's networking to be done at the afterparty."
"Dang, the boss is asking for a project review. Can you lend me some local economic influence so I can get our budget re-approved?"
It's a pity that social/economic/legal power or influence can't be bought at the local store, so that you could just buy as much as you needed when you needed it.
"Hmm, I've got to speak at that conference on the weekend. Got my suit, shiny shoes, slideshow on USB drive... better pick up some spare charisma and influence in case there's networking to be done at the afterparty."
"Dang, the boss is asking for a project review. Can you lend me some local economic influence so I can get our budget re-approved?"