Topic: If you could create a new society from the ground up, what would you do? (Read 3485 times)

Excellent is whatever I want it to be.  I could have a formal standard or just go with my gut feeling.  It is just like breeding animals.  If you want a cow that makes more milk you carefully choose the cow and the bull based on production performance and pedigree.  If I want smarter humans I would carefully select people based on their IQ scores.


If I am the selection mechanism then, by definition, fitness is about my preferences.


No they don't.  You're throwing around words and concepts that you don't understand, and which have no relevance to my ideas.

Define excellent. Every definition you could make is either unspecific on traits or would be brittle in terms of resilience.

Fitness is not about your preferences, rather about adjusting to all possible outcomes which all occur eventually.

Coase's Theorem and the Second Law of Thermodynamics apply.

Refer to this:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

How do you determine who is "kind?" Someone who gives away things and helps others? How do you know it's selfless and not for other nefarious reasons?

What constitutes beautiful? I've seen people that were beautiful to me that others disagreed with, and vice verse. What you're talking about is completely subjective.

The passage that you quoted seems to have no relevance to what I am talking about.  Please clarify what I am missing.

I would not control others, and there would be evolution.  What I would be doing is providing an excellent starting point.

Your point about variance is correct, but again I'm not trying to make a perfect society where everyone is 100% perfect all the time.  However if you started with excellent people who had excellent parents (meaning that the founders are typical members of families with excellent DNA, rather than exceptional people from families with mediocre DNA), chances are that the vast majority of their children are going to be excellent as well.  So yes, there will be jerks, maybe something like 1% of the population, but that is not so bad compared to Earth, which is something like 30% jerks.

Not a problem. My personal opinion is that humans are good at finding reasons to fight. Even if you do divide up the land equally and give each person "forty acres and a mule," somebody somewhere will get upset that somebody else got a more fertile piece of land than he did. But at least you're on the right track here. Start people off on a roughly equal footing and see what they do with it.

Thnx man, I once saw a video about this I only cant find it anymore, because I dont know the title.
And it said, That the world has enough land and resources to give everyone a equal piece of land
Give them everything they need on that land, they also said the goverments can do that but they wont.
The only want to create difference's between us to make us fight.

George carlin on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgps85scy1g

I'd say Nickenburg gets the point of this thread better than a few of the commenters here. The point was to see what YOU would do if you had the chance to create a whole new society from the ground up, not argue about the ills of existing Earth-based societies or bash each other over differences of opinion.

I'd put only kind persons and philosophers on the planet. And of course only healthy people with beautiful appearance.

Everyone of the world would get a piece of land and everyone gets exactly the same amount of land.
With a house and everything you need or want, you will also have a farm with animals, to make your own food.
You will also have a growinghouse where you can grow your own plants, Weed included!
So everyone on the world will be self sufficient And no one will be jalouse because other people have more.
So no one has to steal, and we can live in peace and harmony.

I'll let my expert buddies do it

See quote below for why you are deluding yourself.

If you could control others, there would no longer be life and evolution, because competition would cease. A static system where everything is known a priori is in fact dead.

You have to allow for variance, e.g. in offspring.

Oh you will know when I'm insulting you, I haven't tried to yet, so far I am just pointing out some rather large holes in your processing...


Well, being that you were the one making the outrageous claim, the onus is actually on you to back it up yourself with your research.


[sighs]
Using the same logic, I could posit these other false dichotomies (without bothering to check 'Google'...):
- half the rapes in Oslo are committed by people of other ethnicities, so pro multiculturalism = pro rape
- half the rapes in Oslo are committed by people of Muslim faith, so not being anti muslim = pro rape
- half of the rapists are capitalists, so pro capitalism = pro rape
- half the rapists are socialists, so pro socialism = pro rape
- ALL the rapes were committed by males, so if you are not anti-male, then you are pro-rape

and on and on....so to come to the false conclusion from lets say, the last false dilemma...
False conclusion = By simply sending all the males to Sweden, rates of rape in Oslo could be cut to zero percent overnight ( i.e. mass gender cleansing )

This type of black white thing is often categorised as fallacy of false choice, stemming from fear of the other, and is usually the driving force behind great human tragedies such as ethnic cleansing. Any new societal structure would need established at its tenets, the understanding of the dangers of the fear of others that leads to the formation of false dilemmas and when political power in enacted, on rare occasions leads to great human atrocities.

First thing first is research. Before I even think about creating a new society, I need to do my homework on it all. What's my demographics? What's the average intelligence of my people? What the averaged skilled labor force like?

After I do my research on the people, I need to apply that knowledge to different sectors of life. There's a lot of research that'd need to be to optimize growth of the society.

Overall, I have no idea, at least at this time in my life. Maybe if I spent the next 5-8 years working on this single subject would I be able to tell you the most optimal solution to the question.

I would take the concept of the amana colonies

"The Amana Colonies were one of many utopian colonies established on American soil during the 18th and 19th centuries. There were hundreds of communal utopian experiments in the early United States, and the Shakers alone founded around 20 settlements. While great differences existed between the various utopian communities or colonies, each society shared a common bond in a vision of communal living in a utopian society. "

You don't have access to google?  If you had actually attempted to do some research you would have found out that I was wrong.  It seems that muslim immigrants are committing only half of the rapes in Oslo.  Keep in mind that "only half" is still huge when you consider that they form only 1.5% of the population.  By simply sending these people back home they could cut the rape rate in half overnight.  However the elites don't want that, so it won't happen.  Pro-immigration = pro-rape.

The rest of your post is hysterics and catty attempts at insults.

I suppose you have proof of this?


Which means that if your little genetic cleansing experiment is to work, it would have to be carried out in an isolated location, but its not mostly genetic, its just over 50% attributed to genetics, the rest is the usual social forces at play.

I'm sure those ideas of yours though, have been tried many times, net result in most cases are crazy incestuous cultish communes, or political wise, crazy third reich-ists and their ideas of genetic ( racial ) purity.  

Any new society would have to take into account and come up with alternative solutions to deal with the usual human failings or else your little genetic social group would just start shrinking as you had to exclude members who break the rules.

It is an established scientific fact that personality is mostly genetic.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/02/science/major-personality-study-finds-that-traits-are-mostly-inherited.html

Human beings are built-in "intentionally" (not literally but metaphorically, in the same sense that dogs are 'designed' with big ears for better hearing) to have low self-worth to get them to strive for better. We're competitive creatures. You can label that a pathology all you want and try to cure it until the sun rises in the west, it ain't gonna change.

Well I think that human nature is only how we have learn to behave due to our surroundings and that the personality is a defense mechanism to reality.

That counts me out anyhow, wether it be virtual or not - there are some right whacko's in my family. There are more black sheep in my family than there are white sheep