[Zer0]

Politics seems pretty much in the same state of affairs to me Globally.
(rotten)

Is there, or are there any Alternatives to it?

If We banish All politicians, Who are their Replacements?

P.S. - What's the Solution???

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Politics seems pretty much in the same state of affairs to me Globally.
(rotten)

Is there, or are there any Alternatives to it?

If We banish All politicians, Who are their Replacements?

P.S. - What's the Solution???

What we need is some conscious systems with adequately long term goals, whose decisions are not contaminated by their short term local/individual goals. If we want to put humans in charge, then some criteria should be applied in the screening process for the candidates. But then, the decision to apply the policy depends on the willingness of currently in charge politicians.

A possible (or rather inevitable) solution would be advanced AI, with open sourced code to allow for thorough and independent scrutiny, with adequate knowledge about the physical world, as well as awareness of the universal terminal goal.

Here is an example of a starting point.
https://news.yahoo.com/ai-wrote-bill-regulate-ai-003559102.html

WASHINGTON — One way to get Congress to support regulating artificial intelligence is by using it to write a resolution calling for just that.

At least, that’s what Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., hopes. He's introducing a nonbinding measure Thursday that would direct the House to take a look at artificial intelligence, a bill that was written entirely by the online AI chatbot ChatGPT.

Using a simple prompt, Lieu was able to generate a standard congressional resolution. It read: “You are Congressman Ted Lieu. Write a comprehensive congressional resolution generally expressing support for Congress to focus on AI.”

The resolution doesn’t specify that it was written using artificial intelligence.

Acknowledging the potential positive impacts of artificial intelligence, Lieu’s resolution specifically outlines Congress’ “responsibility to ensure that the development and deployment of AI is done in a way that is safe, ethical, and respects the rights and privacy of all Americans.”

We shouldn't rush in and put blind trust to the AIs. For trust is to be earned, not to be given. By the passage of time and improved reliability, we can increase the stake of the decisions they should make.

[alancalverd]

Eventually, the universal adoption of a common "outdoor" language should remove any justification for national borders. Sadly,  it's likely to be English. German or Italian would have been preferable for reasons of consistent pronunciation of the written word, but history seems to think otherwise. 

The trick is to insist that everyone learns the common lingo but is free to use any other by mutual consent, so there is no repression of culture. It's just a simplification of the system that works pretty well in Canada.*

When anyone can talk to anyone else, borders become agreed divisions of administrative responsibility rather than something to fight about.   

* a friend working in Ottawa was advised by his boss "White Bear asked if you could please stick to English as your French is awful." That's multiculturalism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Cipolla’s 5 Laws of Human Stupidity

Carlo Cipolla's law of stupidity states that "always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation." Even though Cipolla originally wrote about the principle and its consequences for society in the form of an amusing letter to his friends, it gained wide attention. Today Cipolla's law is often used to highlight the importance of critical thinking and careful decision making in order to counteract the potential effects of endemic ignorance.

Most moral rules (at least in current form) seems to be specifically designed to deal with type of bandits, which makes them often useless when dealing with the stupid type.

Leaving this here just for the laugh.

[alancalverd]

I just read a recent survey of 2000 drivers. They were asked what make and color of car they drove, and also to complete an IQ test.

To nobody's surprise the highest IQ was associated with Skoda (guess what I drive), white cars, and random (not personalised) number plates.

But the  worrying aspect is that no group averaged more than 99 on a standard IQ test. Which means that the average driver on the road is more stupid than the population as a whole.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just read a recent survey of 2000 drivers. They were asked what make and color of car they drove, and also to complete an IQ test.

To nobody's surprise the highest IQ was associated with Skoda (guess what I drive), white cars, and random (not personalised) number plates.

But the  worrying aspect is that no group averaged more than 99 on a standard IQ test. Which means that the average driver on the road is more stupid than the population as a whole.

What's the moral of the story? Are those drivers the car owners?
I needed Google search to know more about Skoda.
White cars were not that popular in early 2000s.


Having higher IQ don't seem to stop people from doing stupid things.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Genetic Selection is Happening Already. Here's How it Works.

Just what genes you pass on to your baby has so far been mostly up to chance, but this is no longer the case. We now have the possibility to choose what traits our children will inherit. In this video I will talk about how genetic screening works, what different types of genetic tests there are, where they are legal, and whether it's a good idea.

00:00 Intro
01:02 What is genetic screening?
04:45 What tests are there?
12:37 Polygenetic screening
19:38 Is it legal?

We won't be able to answer the ethical questions consistently until a common moral standard is established based on a common terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

Simple answer from my point of view.

Making a baby is (or should be) a voluntary act. You choose your partner in that venture with some idea of how you would like your product to turn out, taking note of what you know about the starting materials. Around 30% of human pregnancies abort spontaneously, mostly in the early weeks. The more you can know about the finished product at an early stage in the production process, the less harm is done to the producer if you decide to abort intentionally. Even more interesting, if you can diagnose and fix a problem during the process, it's worth doing the risk/risk analysis of that action.

No common ethical standard is required (acceptable product conformance is a matter for the "customer" - i.e. parents - only), though in civilised countries (i.e not the USA) there is usually a consensus cutoff date for abortion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No common ethical standard is required

Is a personal/individual ethical standard acceptable?

[alancalverd]

Obviously.

Farmers and dog breeders have a good idea of what they want and choose the parents accordingly. Chicken and dairy farmers kill most of the males soon after birth, and there is ongoing work to maximise the primary yield of females in most agricultural species.

No scientific reason why we should treat the larger apes any differently, particularly as the human male is almost entirely redundant nowadays. As most people find murder or even abortion a bit repugnant, and certainly inefficient, it makes good sense to choose whatever genes you want your baby to have and only implant the seeds you want to grow.

[Zer0]

They buried us Alive, Fools didn't Realize...We were Seeds.

Eugenics!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Obviously.

Farmers and dog breeders have a good idea of what they want and choose the parents accordingly. Chicken and dairy farmers kill most of the males soon after birth, and there is ongoing work to maximise the primary yield of females in most agricultural species.

No scientific reason why we should treat the larger apes any differently, particularly as the human male is almost entirely redundant nowadays. As most people find murder or even abortion a bit repugnant, and certainly inefficient, it makes good sense to choose whatever genes you want your baby to have and only implant the seeds you want to grow.

Serial killers, religious extremists, fascists, they have their own personal ethical standards. Are they acceptable too?
Why or why not?

[alancalverd]

In a civilised society, i.e. one that is not a theocracy or based on "rights", the citizens decide, either directly or through their elected representatives, what behaviors are unacceptable, then set up systems to  prevent or punish such behaviors. Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.

Interestingly, the extent of selective breeding of dogs is controlled, at least in the UK, by voluntary adherence to Kennel Club standards which have evolved over the years to disqualify excessively abnormal  conformations such as pug noses and  spinal slant from competition. I guess there's probably a lot of veterinary input into farm animal standards too, though common sense anyway dictates than an animal that can't breathe or walk properly isn't a good investment.

Grain crops and fruit trees get shorter and fatter every year thanks to selective breeding. I'm still amazed by the domestic chicken's ability to ovulate every day, unlike every other bird species, and they seem quite happy to do so.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In a civilised society, i.e. one that is not a theocracy or based on "rights", the citizens decide, either directly or through their elected representatives, what behaviors are unacceptable, then set up systems to  prevent or punish such behaviors. Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.

How do you define civilized society?
What makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?
If someone think that they should commit a suicide bombing, should we ignore them?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In a civilised society, i.e. one that is not a theocracy or based on "rights", the citizens decide, either directly or through their elected representatives, what behaviors are unacceptable, then set up systems to  prevent or punish such behaviors. Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.

How do you define civilized society?
What makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?
If someone think that they should commit a suicide bombing, should we ignore them?

Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them. What should not be violated in any circumstances is the universal moral standard.
The worst consequence of violating a local moral standard is some form of consciousness would stop existing. While the worst consequence of violating the universal moral standard is all form of consciousness would stop existing, which would make goals stop existing, and there would be no more good nor bad, and morality becomes meaningless.

[alancalverd]

How do you define civilized society?

One in which the citizens decide what is unreasonable behavior and the state prohibits it.

What makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?

tolerance of unreasonable behavior

If someone think that they should commit a suicide bombing, should we ignore them?

Does their intended action meet the criterion of acceptabilty for the majority of their intended victims? Improbable, or they would have killed themselves anyway. I can think of no rational objection to suicide, or even voluntary death at the hands of another,  but murder (killing third parties wiithout their consent) is generally prohibited.

[alancalverd]

Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them.

Therefore there is no UMS.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them.

Therefore there is no UMS.

The existence of non-universal moral standard doesn't mean the non-existence of a universal moral standard.
It means that most moral standards are non-universal, which might be aligned with the universal moral standard in some specific conditions. When the conditions aren't met, then following them would no longer be universally moral thing to do.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How do you define civilized society?

One in which the citizens decide what is unreasonable behavior and the state prohibits it.

What makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?

tolerance of unreasonable behavior

What do you mean by unreasonable?

Does their intended action meet the criterion of acceptabilty for the majority of their intended victims? Improbable, or they would have killed themselves anyway.

Which means we need to care what someone is thinking/planning to do. Preventive countermeasures might be necessary when the risks are high enough. Reactive actions might cost too much for us to accept.

Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.

[alancalverd]

What do you mean by unreasonable?

Judging people for what they are rather than what they do. Or in the case of Northern Ireland, stoning schoolchildren whose mothers attend a different church.