[yor_on]

Values will be what you interpret later as the reason to your reactions, and actions
And if you ask your brother he might have a different opinion

It's just about whom one is, one might jump down that railroad track to save someone from a train or one may not. Both will tell one something about ones values. Those are the reactions that come without conscious consideration as I see it, and they are very informative.
==

Or at least leave you only a short moment of consideration before all is lost, as I see it. Sometimes one have to force oneself to do it too,, I'm sure we all had those moments when we just have to act, but that doesn't make it less.

[yor_on]

And yes, I agree. Stress is not good for anyone. And comparing once life to what one see in 'rich and famous' wanting to have it all, sounds rather unhealthy to me. But I'm sure there are communities in US of A that's more 'laid back' than that?

[yor_on]

To me reality is hard to define, it's what one live I presume. But if you use physics a lot of things becomes questionable.
But I was thinking of your book, you have a golden opportunity there Just use that imagination.

[Voxx (OP)]

Values will be what you interpret later as the reason to your reactions, and actions
And if you ask your brother he might have a different opinion

It's just about whom one is, one might jump down that railroad track to save someone from a train or one may not. Both will tell one something about ones values. Those are the reactions that come without conscious consideration as I see it, and they are very informative.
==

Or at least leave you only a short moment of consideration before all is lost, as I see it. Sometimes one have to force oneself to do it too,, I'm sure we all had those moments when we just have to act, but that doesn't make it less.

Quite true; It is what you give ethological credence to what propels your motives...I think I got my wording a bit mixed up above.    You've been very helpful Yor_on and I didn't want this to turn into a metaphysical debate on unquantifiable variables like it seems I am turning this into (my bad).

It is true that if I want this book to be at all realistic I do need to set some firm foundations and that is what I am trying to find.  I realize now that not 'everyone' will vote, even if they have ease of access (I have a few start-ups that I have yet to block from auto starting and it would take a simple 2 min to accomplish; instead every time I start up my computer I Ctrl, alt, delete, and end their processes).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What would you call a society that has the following applications to bring this thread to an end?

• A society that everything is freely given
• There are no jobless positions, as the society is continually growing and needs more people (for new births and education)
• Ruled through majority
• Has a set of highly educated people who do not control what is proposed or not, but merely posts personal comments on ratification's to the people's ideas (these people have their position because of trust and can have it taken away at any time; maybe in reference to an adviser)
• The society is focused on technological advancement, but not cybernetics/prosthetic (as they are a genetically evolutionist theorists), they simply use technology to aid in scientific discovery and progression.
• Due to the nature of this publicized information, there has to be at least a mass news network that showcases all latest discoveries.
• Law is decided by a mass populous, including trials (which are very rare, due to the progressive nature of the society) there will be of course deviants and their sentence will be decided by the majority.

List of wondering thoughts I have at the moment:

• If a law was placed and a crime is committed, should the mass decide to revoke that law, does that law still apply to the criminal?  If not then doesn't that completely negate the purpose of a law?  My question being, "At the start of this nation, should there be a law in place that binds the people to their previous decision or (since it is a logical consensus of people) should it depend on circumstance?
• Should there only be one news network, or multiple networks that are fundamentally divided by ethical value of principles for diversity or divided to apply a less likelihood of biasism?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Been a great help Yor_on, I'm glad you stayed for the whole thread's completion and to enlighten on my theories.

[yor_on]

Don't know if you remember that American soldier that threw himself on a grenade to protect his fellows at some outpost? That wasn't about training, not as I see it. That was about core values, even though I'm sure the military consider it part of their tradition. But those values had to come from who he was, how he had been treated by others, and also from what he wanted to think about himself. We have another example from Nazi Germany where one guy refused to shot civilian prisoners. It ended with him joining their line, to be shot with them. Also about values, and to me they come from within, from who you are, as well as who you want to be. We're all humans and we all fail at times, but having values will make you a individual, not happy at all times though Or a 'real human' as I heard someone call it in India once.

[yor_on]

Don't know, but it's a nice start. What will happen Voxx will be that as you really start to get into your characters life, if you're lucky that is,  is that they will become 'real', and you will find them to do things you haven't considered as your plan It will be a organic experience and you will have fun, well part of it will be, although from my own experience of trying it's the endings that is hardest. Because that will mean goodbye to people you may like

[yor_on]

As for having a people of trust, that sounds as a sort of bureaucracy to me, and bureaucracy's are as good as the people working in them, they will reflect the values held of the society around them and if those values are decent they will be decent, as my proposal. And every nation has its own set of values on what is right and wrong, what we might consider a bribe someone else may consider part of the way things are done. Often it has to do with salaries being to small too, the bribes seen as part of the job benefits. and you are ambitious, I'm impressed here

[yor_on]

Well

(I have a few start-ups that I have yet to block from auto starting and it would take a simple 2 min to accomplish; instead every time I start up my computer I Ctrl, alt, delete, and end their processes).

Computer savvy I would call that.

[Voxx (OP)]

Thank you for the quick response.

I don't know if I would call it a bureaucracy, because they aren't actually making any decisions.  They are merely stating their perspective on the issues at hand (their pose is say like an post admins where their comments get filtered to the top).  They, however, have no power to say, 'nope, don't want to put this into effect (deleted).'  They are just intelligent individuals that post butterfly effect happenings that could correlated with the topic at hand.

I have been working on this massive story plot with multivariate possibilities for many years now and finally have decided upon a starting point in the 8000+ years I have mapped out (not that all characters live that long, but the plot goes back that far).

Side Notes:
     - Not as computer savvy as most (I just have a A+ cert).
     - I have really enjoyed my character development as I have created their futures/pasts/present in my head and even now evolves with my delight.

[yor_on]

Time to get started then
Daylights burning.

[Ethos_]

Actually, I prefer liberty to Utopia. No amount of social justice, comfort or security will ever replace the freedom one can experience when real liberty is attained. 

[cheryl j]

Value is not the same as morality, although the word "values," as in "family values" is sometimes used to mean that.

I was referring to positive and negative qualities of things that are somewhat subjective and difficult to measure. The question of value is often ignored in a lot of scientific discussions. I have many friends who are very concerned about climate change, conservation, the environment, etc. I agree with all their views about the need for sustainable living, protecting the environment and smarter, cleaner technology. What frustrates me about the environmental issue is the unwillingness to see the elephant in the room, that many people view something as "wasteful," or "unnecessary" if it's not important to them.

What is more wasteful, eating fresh produce out of season, or the number of light bulbs in the casinos in Los Vegas? Is my plastic kayak more necessary than your Iphone?  Are golf courses more needed than disposable diapers? Is the Super Bowl eco-friendly? Are major league sports more wasteful than the movie Industry? If it sounds like I'm comparing apples and oranges here, that's exactly my point.

And that is the problem with utopian claims that human beings can be controlled and managed with "logic" and "reason" and scientific principles. There will always be some degree of conflict because people value different things differently.

[Voxx (OP)]

Value is not the same as morality, although the word "values," as in "family values" is sometimes used to mean that.

I was referring to positive and negative qualities of things that are somewhat subjective and difficult to measure. The question of value is often ignored in a lot of scientific discussions. I have many friends who are very concerned about climate change, conservation, the environment, etc. I agree with all their views about the need for sustainable living, protecting the environment and smarter, cleaner technology. What frustrates me about the environmental issue is the unwillingness to see the elephant in the room, that many people view something as "wasteful," or "unnecessary" if it's not important to them.

What is more wasteful, eating fresh produce out of season, or the number of light bulbs in the casinos in Los Vegas? Is my plastic kayak more necessary than your Iphone?  Are golf courses more needed than disposable diapers? Is the Super Bowl eco-friendly? Are major league sports more wasteful than the movie Industry? If it sounds like I'm comparing apples and oranges here, that's exactly my point.

And that is the problem with utopian claims that human beings can be controlled and managed with "logic" and "reason" and scientific principles. There will always be some degree of conflict because people value different things differently.

Very explanatory rant you went on there, O.o thank you!

I see where you are coming from and it is true that what many believe in is in truth wrong (except when they do it, then it is just acceptable or an honest mistake...)  I am not trying to hide that fact.  I should have reconsidered the Utopian part and put a society that is focused on development, but has a differing approach than Capitalism.

This society is only concerned about their own progression (in smiley with capitalism, but goes about it's social and financial structures differently).

I've heard it stated before that if we want everyone in the world to experience american standard of living it would require advancing the world by about 700%, which would devastate our resources.  These espers are far from not conscious of their environment, they have clean and sustainable means of energy.  They, however, do not care much about diplomacy and other races.

Now that I think my pointless comment's have been made...  What do you (Cheryl J and Ethos_) think about my specifications and terms so far?

[Ethos_]

Now that I think my pointless comment's have been made...  What do you (Cheryl J and Ethos_) think about my specifications and terms so far?

Utopian Societies are a figment of the overactive imagination. They will never work because the control it demands to redistribute all resources will effectively eliminate most if not all liberty. And BTW, I'm not ready to give up what little liberty we have left here in America.

[bizerl]

I'll kick in another two cents here (actually, five cents. We don't have a two cent coin in Australia any more).

I've often thought that a lot of issues could be solved if people lived a lot longer, say 500 years. If people could personally experience large scale changes, it would change our thinking and we'd be more prepared to make changes that might be short-term detrimental, in order to ensure the long-term benefits.

These espers are far from not conscious of their environment, they have clean and sustainable means of energy.  They, however, do not care much about diplomacy and other races.

I have to wonder why a society that seems so highly advanced and "utopian" in itself, does not see the value in bestowing its way of life on others. A key aspect to this sort of society getting to where it did is selflessness. If a society has acheived selflessness, why are they wanting to invade others?

Perhaps the stereotypical "utopia" that we know is a sham (a dictatorship for instance) might serve your purposes better.

[Ethos_]

Perhaps the stereotypical "utopia" that we know is a sham (a dictatorship for instance) might serve your purposes better.

Well said my friend,........well said!

[Voxx (OP)]

Perhaps the stereotypical "utopia" that we know is a sham (a dictatorship for instance) might serve your purposes better.

Well said my friend,........well said!

There seems to be a sort of misunderstanding here...and some very good replies.

Replies:

I see where you are coming from (I think).  To answer your comment; I think that it is true that a society that is considerably advanced 'emotionally' and 'intellectually',  would try and help out say neighboring kingdoms.  However, there is a very detrimental problem to this endeavor...freedom of choice and racial discrimination (among other points, but I decided to state these two).

Freedom of Choice:  A very very dangerous topic to be on with any individual, because it can be construed to so many different ways.  In my personal opinion freedom of choice just means that you can choose to walk down a street or kill someone that is walking down that street.  It is your freedom that allows you to do it or not, but there is consequences based on individual societies.  Even in a dictatorship (which I assume you are talking about) you have the choice to revolt or not.  The main differential is that those consequences are decided by someone else (not your own rule).

If a society that is pure of heart and thought of everyone in an progressive manner, it would still be flawed as they would have to have completely identical thought to not arise conflict.  There goes your thought of freedom, what is freedom without diversity and how is there diversity without conflict?  A vicious circle that I've realized...

Racial Discrimination on the other hand may not be in this advanced race, but the race that they are trying to help will see these beings and will think one of the following things (a lot more possibilities, but what I first got in my head).

• We can use these guys to get back at 'x'
• We can use these guys to destroy them and take their technology
• Why do we need help from these guys, we don't need their pacifist ways
• Why do they think they are so much better than use, all they have is a bit of technology.  If we steal that, then what makes them so much better?
• We could use your help, but we don't want to follow your principles.
• ect...

-please change this conception if you have a better answer, because it is a very dismal discovery-

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Possible) Misconception

This Utopian society (that I really should have rephrase, I just don't know what to call it) is somewhat of a pure democracy.  There are a set of advisers that voice their opinion on a subject matter at hand, but do not have the authority to disprove anything (only state the effects such a decision could cause and lets the people decide).  These people only have one vote and the votes are taken in a mass and compiled anonymously (with the exception of the advisers, because they have already stated their opinions).  The people make their laws, but as I have already stated all this above there is an inherent flaw with this society that I am trying to ratify (any help?).

What would you call a society that has the following applications to bring this thread to an end?

• A society that everything is freely given
• There are no jobless positions, as the society is continually growing and needs more people (for new births and education)
• Ruled through majority
• Has a set of highly educated people who do not control what is proposed or not, but merely posts personal comments on ratification's to the people's ideas (these people have their position because of trust and can have it taken away at any time; maybe in reference to an adviser)
• The society is focused on technological advancement, but not cybernetics/prosthetic (as they are a genetically evolutionist theorists), they simply use technology to aid in scientific discovery and progression.
• Due to the nature of this publicized information, there has to be at least a mass news network that showcases all latest discoveries.
• Law is decided by a mass populous, including trials (which are very rare, due to the progressive nature of the society) there will be of course deviants and their sentence will be decided by the majority.

List of wondering thoughts I have at the moment:

• If a law was placed and a crime is committed, should the mass decide to revoke that law, does that law still apply to the criminal?  If not then doesn't that completely negate the purpose of a law?  My question being, "At the start of this nation, should there be a law in place that binds the people to their previous decision or (since it is a logical consensus of people) should it depend on circumstance?
• Should there only be one news network, or multiple networks that are fundamentally divided by ethical value of principles for diversity or divided to apply a less likelihood of biasism?

Thank you for your input!

[Voxx (OP)]

Is there a reason why you may not like or like this society?

[Voxx (OP)]

Would you call this a Direct Democracy within a Socialistic setting?