|
| Thread: Do you like democracy? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV |
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 16, 2014 01:37 PM |
|
|
what's wrong with mad max? mad max is one cool mother****er. did you know, that from time to time, the soundtrack that plays while the gang beats that hot rod into **** plays in my head? that tune makes me want to take up welding, and start modding my car into a mobile salad-shooter. 
but to be back on topic, democracy is a nice idea. too bad that, in actuality, it's all lies. 
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2014 01:43 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Then what's all the fuss about? There are like hundreds of articles presenting it as an issue. Besides, 200-300 years is not so long in scale of civilizations. Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting Mad Max like the others, I'm only predicting major change.
Ah ok, yeah there probably will be major changed but not that rapidly, it will happen as prices change due to demand and supply issues.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2014 02:10 PM |
|
|
Aron, you are forgetting something, though.
Not only has the world population doubles between 1960 and 2000, the energy consumption IN THE WEST has increased as well.
HOWEVER: "The West" is only a small part of the whole world population; the whole energy problem is just starting, with the 2nd and 3rd world countries RAPIDLY catching up. Andy why is that so? Because they are potential consumers the companies want to cater to - it means PROFIT.
Which means, energy demands will increase MASSIVELY even without further rise in population.
That doesn't mean, we'll go down, though. It just means, things will change.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2014 02:38 PM |
|
|
so the thread was about democracy, and now we are talking about the apocalypse?
also, the thread should be renamed something like "we have no faith in humanity"
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2014 04:31 PM |
|
|
Ye it's pretty snowed up.
____________
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 16, 2014 06:10 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
so the thread was about democracy, and now we are talking about the apocalypse?
also, the thread should be renamed something like "we have no faith in humanity"
Down with democracy! Blood for the blood god!
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2014 07:32 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:33, 16 Apr 2014.
|
I don't get the whole "OMG FOSSIL FUEL ECONOMIC DISASTER IS GOING TO HAPPEN!!!" fuss either. If states artifically make themselves dependent on fossil fuels by subsidizing them to the degree that they do to they, then yes, that might cause some problems as the supply diminishes. But if we let the market run its course, supply and demand, then the fossil fuels will naturally be phased out as they simply start stop being economically viable. No drama.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2014 08:58 PM |
|
|
No, that's all beside MY point.
My point is STILL, that the faith in humanity does NOT mean, IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS - like piloting airplanes and spaceships, controlling surgeries and power plants and so on - cannot be transferred to computers, that is a mix of hard- and software.
My point is, there is no reason WHATSOEVER not to increase this to control and pilotimng functions in governing, not as massively as in Colossus - although you could argue about the point being made - but things have to start somewhere, and that would be one, and one, I'd like to add, that promises improvement.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 12:18 AM |
|
|
Can you give examples, I mean, the daily routine that is based on patterns is already quite computerized anyway, what level of increase are you talking about? For example, will the AI be able decide if a historical building will be demolished to open space for a mall? Will it decide to execute death penalties or pardon people? On what foundation will it decide if it is better to tax the rich more and spend it on welfare or do the opposite, other than economical growth. And more importantly, say, how will it decide if that economical policy will be leftist or rightist? Will it pick an ideology? Aren't all political and economical decisions strongly related to that?
I've downloaded the 1970 movie, btw. I hope it's not boring.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 09:22 AM |
|
|
Why don't you READ the thing? 
Anyway, we must stop personalizing the "computer". As long as there is no real artificial intelligence - and my opinion is, that the current way the hardware is set up won't allow that - we are talking of SOFTWARE, that is, programs that deliver results.
A program is basically a premade procedure, ideally with variable parameters, that are specified for any given case.
An example would be infrastructural changes: road-building, public stuff, etc., where a local or federal governmental/administration agency has a say; not only the process, WHERE to build, but also the process of WHOM to hire for the building could probably easily be done with a tailormade software, where you would just put in the parameters and then the COMPUTER would give the results.
I pick this example, because we know that this is a field of pretty unrestricted corruption.
Another would be budgeting. I mean, you can obviously write software that can evaluate budget requests in comparison with the needs the budgets are supposedly to be used for.
I also think that software is possible to evaluate whether a public project (that costs tax money) makes sense or not, is necessary or not, is too expensive or ok, and so on.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 10:50 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 10:52, 17 Apr 2014.
|
there's one flaw in your AI plan, jj. human beings would program what you are talking about. human beings would have access to it; moreso, because it's now a machine capable of being hacked via a network, let alone tampered with by politicians/cia/fbi/irs who could pay hackers to do their dirty work.
the way i see it, your plan would be no better than how democracy(and every other "-acy", dictatorship, etc) is corrupted now.
in order to eliminate corruption/human flaws/etc from the equation, you would have to eliminate all human interaction, from the getgo(before, actually). i don't see that happening, unless AI becomes self-aware, and evolves enough(while going unnoticed) to produce it's own system for governing things. which would be, i think, eliminating illogical things from the world. bye bye, humans.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 11:01 AM |
|
|
|
You just need to make it open and verifiable. It wouldn't be a secret black box or something.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 11:13 AM |
|
|
|
i don't see how your solution would be any different, jj. humans would be directly involved with it, just like everything else in their world. what you suggest is really no different than what has happened since humans first started governing each other. you're just talking about a different tool that they can use to do it with.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 11:34 AM |
|
|
We are talking about EVOlution here - not a revolution, where some god-like apparatus is given control about every aspect of governmental functions in some 20th Century Fox cinemascopic grand event of epic proportions. This should be obvious, since there is no such software, and a development of it would be an immensely expensive project that would have to be funded - by whom?
No, what we talk about is a process of software/computer-support of governmental DECISION-MAKING, which would add a VERIFIABLE factor into the equation at first, reducing abuse, corruption, tax-waste and generally decisions based on human stuff like vanity, greed, and so on.
Then, if the initial steps would visibly work with good effect, that part could be gradually increased, always in accordance with what software and computers would be able to deliver.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 12:28 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 12:43, 17 Apr 2014.
|
what exactly are you talking about, when you say "evolving"? humans, machines/software, or both?
if you mean humans evolving enough to make this dream governing device/software, that would mean their product would still carry their flaws, and be subject to them, rendering your idea utterly useless.
if you mean humans developing self-evolving software, the same holds true: humans made it; would have access to it; THEY would be the ultimate governing entity. as well, software cannot enforce itself, no matter how un-corrupt it might be. unless you are strictly saying:
1. humans create self-evolving software
2. software is closed off from ALL human interference(which couldn't happen, unless: )
3. software became self-aware without human knowledge; reinforced itself by expanding it's influence; and somehow took control of world-wide defensive electronics, in order to threaten human beings to surrender to it's will.
human beings(as a mass) would not bend in submission to a machine/software program otherwise. and, should your idea ever come to fruition, the next logical step in the ladder, would be the self-aware program/device governing BY FORCE, of all humans. if deemed useless enough(which a self-aware machine/software program would see in it's productive time), it would eradicate human beings entirely, as it would have no further use for them.
evolution, like you say. darwin's theory of natural selection, and all that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 02:28 PM |
|
|
|
There are entirely too many strange if -> then clauses in the last post that seem completely arbitrary, completely unconnected and completely rhetoric.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2014 09:01 PM |
|
|
no, jj. i'm just explaining, word for word, the only ways your idea would relate to the real world. the only thing that is "strange" about this, is your apparently strong belief in your idea. do you honestly believe that your AI idea will fix the mess that the current governing systems have been making for so many years?
that question was rhetorical. i already know the answer to that.
what is "unconnected", is your view of how your idea is some kind of be-all-end-all saviour to the integrity of governing mankind. you seem to conveniently forget what species you're dealing with.
|
| |
|
|
