This thread is about power and how humans feel about it. Some questions:

1. Is it ever possible to be too powerful?

2. Why do humans have a need to have power in the first place?

3. What is the overall theory behind power, and power exchange? Does it have a psychological basis or is it learned?

1. Is it ever possible to be too powerful?

Yes.

2. Why do humans have a need to have power in the first place?

It stems from competition over resources. Demand always outstrips supply.

3. What is the overall theory behind power, and power exchange? Does it have a psychological basis or is it learned?

Survival. It's both genetic and acquired. All living things have an imperative to define and maintain a given territory in which the things they need to survive reside. It's imprinted, wired in. Over and above that there exists another simple biological imperative - mate. Fundamentally it's in direct contradiction to imperative one - establish and maintain a territory.

Everything which follows, the complex interactions which take place between all creatures stem exclusively from these two basic genetic instructions. That includes humans.

1. Is it ever possible to be too powerful?

Yes.

2. Why do humans have a need to have power in the first place?

It stems from competition over resources. Demand always outstrips supply.

3. What is the overall theory behind power, and power exchange? Does it have a psychological basis or is it learned?

Survival. It's both genetic and acquired. All living things have an imperative to define and maintain a given territory in which the things they need to survive reside. It's imprinted, wired in. Over and above that there exists another simple biological imperative - mate. Fundamentally it's in direct contradiction to imperative one - establish and maintain a territory.

Everything which follows, the complex interactions which take place between all creatures stem exclusively from these two basic genetic instructions. That includes humans.



I don't think it's about land, or terrritory, as these concepts are too abstract. I think it's about an entity seeking to control it's environment. As fear increases, an entity seeks to control it's environment in order to restore a sense of security.

I'm not sure it's genetic, I think it's a reaction to insecurity and fear.

Well, basically, in practical terms:

an entity seeking to control it's environment

is an entity establishing and maintaining a territory, isn't it?

Fear can certainly be a motivation towards aspiring towards gaining more power, granted - but the underlying principal is simply that of basic survival. This is what it starts from. In more complex systems, where population is dense relative to territorial availability, sociological motivations may mask what underlies, but basically the motivation remains the survival instinct.

Time traveller, why can't it be both geographical rule AND a need to control environment? They are fairly synonymous in my mind. To control an environment one must generally rule it as well. Within the animal kingdom territorial battles ensue constantly and although most animals do not have the mental capacities to intellectually decide to control their environment humans do.

If we consider Maslows hierachy of needs: In the higher stages of this concept the focus turns away from the things people can easily conquer (like finding food and shelter) and instead focuses on the more cerebral aspects of human desire. Human motivation becomes key here.
Although, Maslow's theory states that as a person reaches the higher levels of needs, they become more wise, understanding and altruistic, I believe this concept to be overly optimistic. People, like animals develop through learned experience and instinct.
It could be said here that People have always desired power. Through out the history of man people have fought for things like land, spices, minerals, slaves, religion and just about anything else that may give them power. This behavior is ingrained into the DNA of all of us. One only needs to look at the selfishness of a child to see that "the desire for power" is certainly a human characteristic.
Consider Darwin's S.O.T.F. In many instances we must use our powers, what ever they may be, in order to survive.
In the Capitalist world, power has altered it's form to the point that money can do damage from a distance to those that are percieved to be threats. It is no different than when our ancestors ran around throwing rocks and weilding wood clubs in combat if a neighbouring clan moved too close to something of value.

Time traveller, why can't it be both geographical rule AND a need to control environment? They are fairly synonymous in my mind. To control an environment one must generally rule it as well. Within the animal kingdom territorial battles ensue constantly and although most animals do not have the mental capacities to intellectually decide to control their environment humans do.
People fight over resources, not "land". You want control over natural resorces, not desert.

If we consider Maslows hierachy of needs: In the higher stages of this concept the focus turns away from the things people can easily conquer (like finding food and shelter) and instead focuses on the more cerebral aspects of human desire. Human motivation becomes key here.

Although, Maslow's theory states that as a person reaches the higher levels of needs, they become more wise, understanding and altruistic, I believe this concept to be overly optimistic. People, like animals develop through learned experience and instinct.

Some people are altruists, but I think fear is the driver of control. You'll conquer and control whatever you fear as that is how fear is defeated.

It could be said here that People have always desired power. Through out the history of man people have fought for things like land, spices, minerals, slaves, religion and just about anything else that may give them power. This behavior is ingrained into the DNA of all of us. One only needs to look at the selfishness of a child to see that "the desire for power" is certainly a human characteristic.
Consider Darwin's S.O.T.F.

I don't think it's genetic. Believe me, if we lived in a society where we had unlimited resources, I think the majority of us would not seek power, but if that society were to collapse or resources were to run out, the panic would cause people to go into survival mode. The funny thing is, if you look at the current society, people spend most of their time fighting over paper money and not resources such as food, water, minerals and things of this sort.

In many instances we must use our powers, what ever they may be, in order to survive.
In the Capitalist world, power has altered it's form to the point that money can do damage from a distance to those that are percieved to be threats. It is no different than when our ancestors ran around throwing rocks and weilding wood clubs in combat if a neighbouring clan moved too close to something of value.
Money is just paper, it's not really power unless people agree to give it power. The real power is not in the money, it's in the gun. You look at a rich country like USA, it's not our money that wins the respect of the world, it's the size of our gun. We could be in debt, but we have a big, BIG gun and could destroy the earth with it if pissed off. If you look at it on an individual level then it's about money, and how do you get money? Through power a lot of the time as money and power are synergetic.

1. Is it ever possible to be too powerful?

Too powerful according to whom ....the powerful or the weak? It makes a difference, ya' know? There's more than just one side to this question ...and which side you take determines how it's answered.

2. Why do humans have a need to have power in the first place?

Who says that humans have that need? And what's the factual evidence for that assertion? As I see it, there are some humans who seem to be perfectly happy living in a cardboard box under a highway bridge - what about them as humans? Do they fit ito this question of power?

As to the third question, the first two must be answered prior to even considering an answer for the third.

Baron Max

1. Define power
2. Define power
3. I'll start with defining power: Knowledge is power. Power is Knowledge. Skills, abilities, important facts (weaknesses, secrets etc.). What you understand you control. The more you know, the less energy you require to manipulate it.

So:
1. No
2. All men seek shelter from bad things; perfect knowledge makes this possible; all men seek perfect understanding.

The problem is thinking "power IS knowledge". Hence the more powerful you are, the more wise you are. Or rather the problem is some people just give away their power in exchange for freedom from responsibilities ("with great power comes great responsibility"). You can then say "it's someone elses fault!". People start thinking they should do something about the leaders, not the people. And leaders think themselves omniscient because no one can rival them. Although this could be a result of good understanding of the psyche, hence legimate.

Problems occur when people don't try to increase their power but instead to protect the view that they are powerful enough; that they don't need to do anything more. Then they use means which in reality eats their own power. And since others give away their power, this wounds others as well.

Humans are social animals but we're pack animals like dogs, adapted to live in large extended families, rather than herd animals like bison who can live with thousands of anonymous neighbors.

Packs need leaders. The larger the pack, the more powerful the leader. Unfortunately our packs have grown and merged and are now the size of a herd, but our instincts have not evolved quickly enough to keep up with it.

It takes a lot of power--strength, wisdom, skill, charm, achievements, acquisitions--to be the leader of a large family, just take a close look at one. It takes much more to be the leader of a tribe. To be the leader of a herd of people who are strangers or even downright hostile to one another requires massively more.

Many people have a really strong alpha instinct, so they're always consciously or unconsciously trying to accumulate power so they can rise to leadership level.

Hmm, very good thoughts, Fraggle ....very good indeed.

Baron Max

Who needs leaders? Every man for themselves. Power for the people, and responsibility to boot. Power to rule your own life.

Some people just start relying to other people's power, and lose. You'd just suffer ultimately as the leader fails. And would be powerless to stop it.

Who needs leaders? Every man for themselves. Power for the people, and responsibility to boot. Power to rule your own life.

Okay ...and what are you going to do when a very large, violent man rapes and kills your wife and children and steals everything that you own? He's bigger than you, stronger than you and has lots of big weapons, too. What's a regular, normal man to do about it?

I fear that you haven't fully thought much about what you're saying in your post, but that's also a problem. In your leaderless-every-man-for-himself world, if you happen to say something that pisses someone else off, you might get smacked in the mouth. And waht can you do about that?

Baron Max

Okay ...and what are you going to do when a very large, violent man rapes and kills your wife and children and steals everything that you own? He's bigger than you, stronger than you and has lots of big weapons, too. What's a regular, normal man to do about it?
Wait until he goes to sleep.

I fear that you haven't fully thought much about what you're saying in your post, but that's also a problem. In your leaderless-every-man-for-himself world, if you happen to say something that pisses someone else off, you might get smacked in the mouth. And waht can you do about that?
The same thing that a lion does when another lion wants to take his place, fight.

What's a regular, normal man to do about it?

Why, nothing! He's weak and stupid. He'll propably pay the man, too.

What would a strong and wise man do? He'd gather his neighbours around, and talk about this menace. Then he and his strong and wise pals would ambush the guy. But not kill him. Oh no...

In your leaderless-every-man-for-himself world, if you happen to say something that pisses someone else off, you might get smacked in the mouth. And waht can you do about that?

Kick them to the balls?

Asides, if you were stupid enough to say something that made someone angry, then you might just revise everything you just said. Maybe the guy had a good reason to slap you?

Most reason I talk of world-without-leaders is that when you have a leader, you obviously don't have to know or be able to do anything. Superman will always save you. So what happens when someone decides to rape you? Will superman strike from the sky and save your ass? Or is the system going to take too long to arrive to actually prevent anything? Then they could sue him and fine him, sure, but would that make YOU feel any better?

Would your neighbours just walk by, because "someone else will take care of it"? And would they even be powerful to help you, even if they would? What about murder? It's nice they caught the murderer, but that wouldn't really warm my heart down in the grave, really.

Money is just paper, it's not really power unless people agree to give it power. The real power is not in the money, it's in the gun. You look at a rich country like USA, it's not our money that wins the respect of the world, it's the size of our gun. We could be in debt, but we have a big, BIG gun and could destroy the earth with it if pissed off. If you look at it on an individual level then it's about money, and how do you get money? Through power a lot of the time as money and power are synergetic.

we should have a poll of who actually respects america and who just thinks its funny that they are only 300 years old.

we should have a poll of who actually respects america and who just thinks its funny that they are only 300 years old.
Why? Your opinion doesn't matter, just that of your political leaders.

Time traveller, why can't it be both geographical rule AND a need to control environment? They are fairly synonymous in my mind. To control an environment one must generally rule it as well. Within the animal kingdom territorial battles ensue constantly and although most animals do not have the mental capacities to intellectually decide to control their environment humans do.

If we consider Maslows hierachy of needs: In the higher stages of this concept the focus turns away from the things people can easily conquer (like finding food and shelter) and instead focuses on the more cerebral aspects of human desire. Human motivation becomes key here.
Although, Maslow's theory states that as a person reaches the higher levels of needs, they become more wise, understanding and altruistic, I believe this concept to be overly optimistic. People, like animals develop through learned experience and instinct.
It could be said here that People have always desired power. Through out the history of man people have fought for things like land, spices, minerals, slaves, religion and just about anything else that may give them power. This behavior is ingrained into the DNA of all of us. One only needs to look at the selfishness of a child to see that "the desire for power" is certainly a human characteristic. Every characteristic is human. The difference is we have chosen to reward selfishness so it does not matter if you have the characteristic or not, you'll still have to be selfish or die. Not all children are born selfish, but all adults become selfish because you don't get a choice.

Consider Darwin's S.O.T.F. In many instances we must use our powers, what ever they may be, in order to survive.
In the Capitalist world, power has altered it's form to the point that money can do damage from a distance to those that are percieved to be threats. It is no different than when our ancestors ran around throwing rocks and weilding wood clubs in combat if a neighbouring clan moved too close to something of value.

Power exists internally and is expressed externally. That is all.

Humans are social animals but we're pack animals like dogs, adapted to live in large extended families, rather than herd animals like bison who can live with thousands of anonymous neighbors.

Packs need leaders. The larger the pack, the more powerful the leader. Unfortunately our packs have grown and merged and are now the size of a herd, but our instincts have not evolved quickly enough to keep up with it.

It takes a lot of power--strength, wisdom, skill, charm, achievements, acquisitions--to be the leader of a large family, just take a close look at one. It takes much more to be the leader of a tribe. To be the leader of a herd of people who are strangers or even downright hostile to one another requires massively more.

Many people have a really strong alpha instinct, so they're always consciously or unconsciously trying to accumulate power so they can rise to leadership level.

Too many assumptions. First you cannot classify all humans as the same type of animal, with the same type of instincts, and same social orders, You ignore everything like culture and genetics, and character traits, and systems.

Humans are designed for tribal society, decentralized, because this is how humans lived for the longest period of time. Civilization is still a new experiment.

I think most humans can handle much bigger herds now because we have much better communication now. So when you say we are pack animals, that was during the dark ages, and during the age before the internet when you couldnt get to know every human on earth, today it is possible to know every thing about everyone.

The way to be leader of large herds is to stop thinking about power in a top down approach. The reason humans cannot handle large groups is because humans still think power is best distributed top down even when there is no historical evidence to support it. In reality, if we look at roaches, there are social structures, there are also social structures in ants, and among the insect kingdom. We also have tribal social structures which are completely decentralized to the point where large scale war was impossible.

In a leaderless society, where instead of people being leaders, lets say the law and a super computer make all the decisions based on algorithms, then there is no need for leaders. Each human will be given a job based on the law of full employement, and work from childhood until death or until that human contributes enough to earn enough social credits to make up for the damage that individual human has commited to it's environment and society.

In a rational world, where the laws are generated by super computers, based on rational ethics which say those who benefit the community and who increase the quality of the world earn more credit than those who don't, then you'll have people who are given jobs based on their individual productivity, you'll have people who are of good influence to the world recieving the most responsibility, etc.

That's the only way I think power will ever be distributed in a rational way, I do not think humans will ever be rational enough to distribute power in a way which is in their own best interest. I honestly a super computer would do a better job figuring out whats in humans best interest and societies best interest than any man could or can, so I think computer aided leadership will be the solution if we want to increase the quality of leadership.

It starts with ethics, but it also would require that computers generate laws and make certain decisions. Example, a computer generated law would make certain laws for certain individuals based on the history of the specific individual involved. If an individual has a violent history, the computer would be able to generate a specific set of laws taylored to that individuals profile. No human will ever be able to create a system of just or fair laws.

The computer would be able to calculate how much damage each individual human does to it's environment. The computer would be able to calculate how much damage each individual human does to society, and to other humans. If a human has what you can call a very very low threat level, no history of damage or abuse of power, then the computer would be able to give the human greater and greater responsibility based on an accurate point system.

Honestly, this is the system we use with employees, with students who get graded, and with most everyone, so at some point computers will be able to aid in this process. A computer cannot be made corrupt, it cannot be bribed, it cannot be manipulated, it does not have emotions, it only knows right and wrong and nothing in between, a computer is absolutely logical all the time, and never makes logic errors.

Therefore if we want to bring rationality to the world the computers are the only way it can happen. Do I think this will ever happen? No.

I think humans would rather kill themselves and go extinct than have a rational world, because it feels better to have an irrational world. It does not make any sense whatsoever, but neither does our species.

I think humans would rather kill themselves and go extinct than have a rational world, because it feels better to have an irrational world.

If you really believe that, then why are you constantly trying to come up with ways to create this rational and perfect world? Practically every post you make is seeking some sort of computerized, rational society/world ...why?

And worse, you often seem intent on FORCING humans into this perfect world you've tried to create .....knowing damned well that they won't stay there without a major fight!

I don't get your grand scheme of things ......care to explain?

Baron Max

Too many assumptions. First you cannot classify all humans as the same type of animal, with the same type of instincts, and same social orders, You ignore everything like culture and genetics, and character traits, and systems.
Coming from someone who denies race? Every group of people started off with extended families(tribal) headed by a chief or king or some type of leader. There have ALWAYS been leaders in written history.

Humans are designed for tribal society, decentralized, because this is how humans lived for the longest period of time. Civilization is still a new experiment.
This is exactly what Fraggle said, because we are designed for tribal society, we haven't adapted to centralized governments yet.

I think most humans can handle much bigger herds now because we have much better communication now. So when you say we are pack animals, that was during the dark ages, and during the age before the internet when you couldnt get to know every human on earth, today it is possible to know every thing about everyone.'
Who knows everything about every person on Earth? You're a liar. You couldn't even comprehend knowing how to match everyone's face to their names.


In a rational world, where the laws are generated by super computers, based on rational ethics
Rational ethics?
It starts with ethics, but it also would require that computers generate laws and make certain decisions. Example, a computer generated law would make certain laws for certain individuals based on the history of the specific individual involved. If an individual has a violent history, the computer would be able to generate a specific set of laws taylored to that individuals profile. No human will ever be able to create a system of just or fair laws.
Just or fair means that everyone is treated the same regardless of their history.

Honestly, this is the system we use with employees, with students who get graded, and with most everyone, so at some point computers will be able to aid in this process. A computer cannot be made corrupt, it cannot be bribed, it cannot be manipulated, it does not have emotions, it only knows right and wrong and nothing in between, a computer is absolutely logical all the time, and never makes logic errors.
Right and wrong aren't real values, how can they be determined by a computer?

I think humans would rather kill themselves and go extinct than have a rational world, because it feels better to have an irrational world. It does not make any sense whatsoever, but neither does our species.
It's only recently that what "feels" right has been incorporated into society. We've never lived in a rational world because it isn't possible.

If you really believe that, then why are you constantly trying to come up with ways to create this rational and perfect world? Practically every post you make is seeking some sort of computerized, rational society/world ...why?

And worse, you often seem intent on FORCING humans into this perfect world you've tried to create .....knowing damned well that they won't stay there without a major fight!

I don't get your grand scheme of things ......care to explain?

Baron Max


I never said I personally believe in suicide, or in death of the species, or in irrationality. It's not really about me.

The point is, we all know we have a problem, all of us know this, and we know it's a common interest, to have the human species survive. This cannot happen if we are irrational.

It's not rational for the survival of lions for a male lion to kill another male's children,and yet their species has survived all the way up until now.

Coming from someone who denies race? Every group of people started off with extended families(tribal) headed by a chief or king or some type of leader. There have ALWAYS been leaders in written history.

Tribes yes, leaders? Not all leaders are of the same definition as Democracy has existed among tribal societies for a long time and so has diplomacy, so leadership was a group of elderly friends who sat in a circle and smoked weed together while discussing business. Leader in this context meant representitive, but then you have other types of leaders of empires and kings and thats a more absolute authority.

This is exactly what Fraggle said, because we are designed for tribal society, we haven't adapted to centralized governments yet.

'It's not that we have not adapted to centralized government, it's more that there is no evidence that centralized anything is more efficient than decentralized. Even in the technology world, and biological world, redundant decentralized structures seem to last longer, even the bees, and insects, and our internet is built this way.

Who knows everything about every person on Earth? You're a liar. You couldn't even comprehend knowing how to match everyone's face to their names.

Someone on planet earth knows everything about you, and it's not impossible to know everything about everyone. It does not have to be "everyone", but if everyones in a database, someone knows. This means anyone could know, yet not likely everyone.

Rational ethics?
.
Just or fair means that everyone is treated the same regardless of their history.
History is how we judge one another. I'm talking about your personal history, if you have a history of stealing, and a robbery is suspected, it should be taken into account that you have a long history of being a thief. Reputation is important, it should play a role.

Right and wrong aren't real values, how can they be determined by a computer?

1 and 0 are real values, right is 1, wrong is 0, and if you harm society, the environment, or individuals you should lose points, you know, like money. People judge individuals this way, you harm someone and you lose points, they remember that, it does hurt your reputation, it does make you lose credit, and whats wrong with taking social credit into account?

It's only recently that what "feels" right has been incorporated into society. We've never lived in a rational world because it isn't possible.

A rational world is possible, you just don't want it. You are afraid to admit you don't want a rational world because you personally arent rational, and it has nothing to do with it being impossible. If every human on the planet were judged by their behavior towards everyone else and towards the environment, I don't think you'd have many problems with crime, or insecurity, as everyone would have a record.

You seem to think that people cannot track everything you do? It's likely that we already do that, but if we don't, we could easily hire people to secure society through sophisticated tracking.

Every human has a profile, a psychological profile, a criminal profile if you ever commited a crime, a reputation based on how you treat other people(social profile), and so on and so forth. Each human already has a reputation and is already known, someone somewhere has your records. So the point is not that it cannot be done, it obviously can be done, and it's obviously in humanities best interest to do it.

The question is do you want it done? If security is a problem, the solution to security is simple, track every human on the planet 24/7. If you track everyone there is about 0% chance of terrorism, and 100% of criminals will be caught/captured, and in most cases you'll know about the crime they plan to commit before they actually commit them based on behavioral profiling.

In general, if you applied technology to crime fighting, and to security, then we'd easily have an absolutely safe world, or at least much much safer, and honestly we have to do this simply to avoid destroying ourselves with nano technology, bio-technology, or whatever. What say you? Any better ideas?

It's not rational for the survival of lions for a male lion to kill another male's children,and yet their species has survived all the way up until now.

Lions will not outlive roaches and bees. If humans decided to we could extinct lions just by hunting them. Cats don't defend each other and are fairly dumb and unconscious. Dogs are another story as they'd fight us in packs. Insects we couldnt wipe out if we used all our technology, they mate too fast, and they are just too evolved for us.

Why would you look to some of the least evolved species to learn from, like mammals, and lions at that, whom we have absolutely nothing in common with as a species? We have more in common with monkeys and mice, we have more in common with rabbits and bears, we have more in common with dogs, if we decided to live like cats, we'd likely need to have a population as low as cats, meaning in the tens of millions and not in the billions.

If you want to look at how successful a species is, learn how long the species has survived regardless of what humanity has done to it. Many cat species have gone extinct, like saber tooth tigers. The roach species however was here before us and will be here after us, it's safe to say roaches are more evolved and advanced than we are, simply because they last longer, and thats all that matters.

Rational existance is about lastability, sustainability, survivability, and the ability to adapt, and cats have none of these abilities, they are as adaptable as sheep, maybe less so, and that is why cats are domesticated to the point where we keep them as pets.

You want to learn from cats? Why don't you learn from spiders while you are at it, spiders kill each other to the point where spiders must live within VAST distances from each other. Would you want to live like a spider? As a male, would you want to be consumed by the female so the female can support your babies?

Tribes yes, leaders? Not all leaders are of the same definition as Democracy has existed among tribal societies for a long time and so has diplomacy, so leadership was a group of elderly friends who sat in a circle and smoked weed together while discussing business. Leader in this context meant representitive, but then you have other types of leaders of empires and kings and thats a more absolute authority.
Regardless of what type of leaders, there were still leaders, meaning that there must be some inherent need to have authority.
'It's not that we have not adapted to centralized government, it's more that there is no evidence that centralized anything is more efficient than decentralized. Even in the technology world, and biological world, redundant decentralized structures seem to last longer, even the bees, and insects, and our internet is built this way.
I agree with you decentralized governments retain more control, and encourage competition, improving the species.
Someone on planet earth knows everything about you, and it's not impossible to know everything about everyone. It does not have to be "everyone", but if everyones in a database, someone knows. This means anyone could know, yet not likely everyone.
Really? Someone knows everything about me? Well then, who? I'm still a child, and I PROMISE you that NO ONE knows everything about me. I'm 100% positive of that. ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT. I imagine that that is more true for people who are older.

History is how we judge one another. I'm talking about your personal history, if you have a history of stealing, and a robbery is suspected, it should be taken into account that you have a long history of being a thief. Reputation is important, it should play a role.
Yes, that's what we learn from the little boy who cried wolf. If they wouldn't have taken his reputation into account, the outtcome would've been a bit better. Character is a lot more important than reputation in my opinion.

1 and 0 are real values, right is 1, wrong is 0, and if you harm society, the environment, or individuals you should lose points, you know, like money. People judge individuals this way, you harm someone and you lose points, they remember that, it does hurt your reputation, it does make you lose credit, and whats wrong with taking social credit into account?
SO, if you(ignorant to the situation) give my sister an STD, and she dies from it, you are a murderer. You caused my sister's death. And because of that, you're convicted of a crime later on that you didn't commit, based on your reputation as a murderer.

Lions will not outlive roaches and bees. If humans decided to we could extinct lions just by hunting them. Cats don't defend each other and are fairly dumb and unconscious. Dogs are another story as they'd fight us in packs. Insects we couldnt wipe out if we used all our technology, they mate too fast, and they are just too evolved for us.

Why would you look to some of the least evolved species to learn from, like mammals, and lions at that, whom we have absolutely nothing in common with as a species? We have more in common with monkeys and mice, we have more in common with rabbits and bears, we have more in common with dogs, if we decided to live like cats, we'd likely need to have a population as low as cats, meaning in the tens of millions and not in the billions.

If you want to look at how successful a species is, learn how long the species has survived regardless of what humanity has done to it. Many cat species have gone extinct, like saber tooth tigers. The roach species however was here before us and will be here after us, it's safe to say roaches are more evolved and advanced than we are, simply because they last longer, and thats all that matters.

Rational existance is about lastability, sustainability, survivability, and the ability to adapt, and cats have none of these abilities, they are as adaptable as sheep, maybe less so, and that is why cats are domesticated to the point where we keep them as pets.

You want to learn from cats? Why don't you learn from spiders while you are at it, spiders kill each other to the point where spiders must live within VAST distances from each other. Would you want to live like a spider? As a male, would you want to be consumed by the female so the female can support your babies?

What, mammals are less evolved than insects? Interesting lesson T_T.

Regardless of what type of leaders, there were still leaders, meaning that there must be some inherent need to have authority.

I agree with you decentralized governments retain more control, and encourage competition, improving the species.

Really? Someone knows everything about me? Well then, who? I'm still a child, and I PROMISE you that NO ONE knows everything about me. I'm 100% positive of that. ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT. I imagine that that is more true for people who are older.


Yes, that's what we learn from the little boy who cried wolf. If they wouldn't have taken his reputation into account, the outtcome would've been a bit better. Character is a lot more important than reputation in my opinion.


SO, if you(ignorant to the situation) give my sister an STD, and she dies from it, you are a murderer. You caused my sister's death. And because of that, you're convicted of a crime later on that you didn't commit, based on your reputation as a murderer.


Trust me, everything about you is known, even if just for the sake of national or global security. Your name is known, your date of birth, you have a social security number, a bank account, everything you did in school was known, everything you did at home is known, everything you did with your friends is known, any experience you've ever had with any human on planet earth is known. Everyone is known, this means you are known, I'm known, and everyone here is known, if you weren't known then you'd be considered dangerous.

As technology becomes more sophisticated, and databases more efficient, more and more data will be collected on everyone, by everyone, cameras will be everywhere, surveillance will be everywhere, databases will be everywhere, and we will ultimately have a security oriented society and security oriented economy. The whole war on terrorism is all about security and surveillance, if you can't figure that out by now maybe you are a child.

Insects are more evolved than humans because they have more advanced communication, as we just recently develop the internet and things such as this, also, insects have more eyes, insects are immune to almost all viruses and radiation, insects are so decentralized they are unkillable and unextinctable by man. Insects are simply more evolved than mammals, and there is no way you can debate this. We might be individually smarter, but the roach species is way more evolved. Learn from that.

Insects are more evolved than humans? How do you work that one out? Do you know just how complex the human brain is compared to just about anything else? No, didn't think so.
"Unextinctable"? Looks like you got some learnin of yer ownsome to do.

If humans decided to we could extinct lions just by hunting them. Cats don't defend each other and are fairly dumb and unconscious.That's an amazing thing to say. Domestic cats and many wild species are actually quite clever at problem solving.Dogs are another story as they'd fight us in packs.Dogs did better than that. They allied with us. Dogs voluntarily formed the world's first multi-species community with humans long before we had the know-how to domesticate animals. They were smart enough to see the advantage in combining the unique hunting and protection skills of both species and adaptable enough to try it. I've posted my analysis of this phenomenon at great length on other threads.Why would you look to some of the least evolved species to learn from, like mammals, and lions at that, whom we have absolutely nothing in common with as a species? We have more in common with monkeys and mice, we have more in common with rabbits and bears, we have more in common with dogs,Lions are in fact pack animals like dogs. They're not quite as social as dogs are but they are social. A few other species of cats also hunt cooperatively, like cheetahs. Bears are not social animals. We have more in common with lions than bears if you're talking about socialization rather than the ability to survive on an omnivorous diet. Some species like brown bears and polar bears tolerate each other's company if food is plentiful, especially when they take up the life of scavengers and live on the fringe of civilization, but they don't seek each other's company and they don't hunt cooperatively like lions, dogs and Stone Age humans. I don't think we have a whole lot in common with rabbits. They're social, but like many species of grazers they are herd animals rather than pack animals. They graze with anonymous neighbors rather than packmates.If we decided to live like cats, we'd likely need to have a population as low as cats, meaning in the tens of millions and not in the billions.Actually up until the end of the Neolithic Era the human population was down in the tens of millions as well. It was the technology of civilization that allowed us to thrive in such large numbers. And, as my other postings have postulated--which you might be interested in looking up and reading--I believe that the experience of learning to live in cooperation and harmony with dogs, a totally different species, was one of the factors in our ability to learn to live in cooperation and harmony with other people who merely differ from us in appearance, language, and behavior. I claim that the self-domestication of dogs was a key step in the progress toward civilization.

Trust me, everything about you is known, even if just for the sake of national or global security. Your name is known, your date of birth, you have a social security number, a bank account, everything you did in school was known, everything you did at home is known, everything you did with your friends is known, any experience you've ever had with any human on planet earth is known. Everyone is known, this means you are known, I'm known, and everyone here is known, if you weren't known then you'd be considered dangerous.

If everyone is known by every experience they've ever had, how is it that terrorist attacks are carried out by known residents? The only time that national and global security pays that much attention to someone is if they're already considered a threat, Do you have any idea how many people it would take to do that with everyone?

If everyone is known by every experience they've ever had, how is it that terrorist attacks are carried out by known residents? The only time that national and global security pays that much attention to someone is if they're already considered a threat, Do you have any idea how many people it would take to do that with everyone?

Actually, the 911 terrorists were on watch lists. Don't ask me why they were not caught before the act, I'm not head of the CIA, but the CIA knew who they were, that much is a solid fact.

It's not that it takes a lot of people, there really arent millions of terrorists, maybe only thousands, and there are millions of Americans without jobs, and millions of Americans with jobs, and just, there aren't a lot of terrorists.

You are correct, you arent going to be surviellanced fully unless you are considered a threat, but everyone is still watched because thats just how any good security system works. People are debating the wiretap issue, but honestly, that is just one type of surviellance. This is not new, perhaps the technology is new and more sophisciated now, so now it is possible to watch every person in the world, and I don't see anything wrong with this as it would create lots of jobs for lots of people. In Europe they had surviellance cameras everyhwere for a while, and in the USA we will have surviellance cameras everywhere as well. We have an office of homeland security, and a nearly 400 billion defense budget and this is what we can calculate, stop being naive. We have the money to hire as many people as needed to secure the national security.

The global security industry is a massive growth industry. America and Americans should do what is in their best interest and invest in better more efficient security. The best way to secure the globe is to watch every human on planet earth. This does not mean you have to watch every human equally, as some humans are obviously more of a threat than others, and this much is obvious.

It is never a situation where governments are caught completely by surprise, as 911 was not a complete surprise, perhaps the tactics were surprising, but the people involved were known to have come from the middle east, they were not American born, and they have been known to be associated with Bin Laden, and they had been put on watch lists, and were considered a threat. The security today is much better than it was, as now we spend more, we have better databases, we have better surviellance, we have all sorts of new tools, I think we are more secure than ever, at least the nation is. Individual security is another topic.

I think George Bush has been doing a great job on security and fighting terrorism, you may not agree with how he does it, but we have not been attacked since 911. We also have to thank the hard work of people who work in the intelligence agencies, and people who develop the technologies. The security industry is the biggest growth industry in the economy, with almost unlimited federal money going to security, if you can figure out a way to secure the world, and you can create a blueprint, you'll likely get federal money.

Actually, the 911 terrorists were on watch lists. Don't ask me why they were not caught before the act, I'm not head of the CIA, but the CIA knew who they were, that much is a solid fact.

It's not that it takes a lot of people, there really arent millions of terrorists, maybe only thousands, and there are millions of Americans without jobs, and millions of Americans with jobs, and just, there aren't a lot of terrorists.

You are correct, you arent going to be surviellanced fully unless you are considered a threat, but everyone is still watched because thats just how any good security system works. People are debating the wiretap issue, but honestly, that is just one type of surviellance. This is not new, perhaps the technology is new and more sophisciated now, so now it is possible to watch every person in the world, and I don't see anything wrong with this as it would create lots of jobs for lots of people. In Europe they had surviellance cameras everyhwere for a while, and in the USA we will have surviellance cameras everywhere as well. We have an office of homeland security, and a nearly 400 billion defense budget and this is what we can calculate, stop being naive. We have the money to hire as many people as needed to secure the national security.

And so, there is no one who knows EVERYTHING about me, just like I said. And it is impossible to nkow everything about everyone, most people don't remember everything about themselves. If they hired enough people to keep tabs on EVERYone, then how could they be sure that there weren't spies in the system? It would take at least a fourth of the world's population to do so, and that would be with everyone watching 3 people 24/7, and with everyone being able to understand the language of all 3 people they are watching. I'mm not positive, but since China has a third of the world's population, and India has quite few people in it, I doubt that there's enough people in the United States to do what you're talking about. Definitely not with all of our other needs being taken care of. You're talking about survailence on everyone at all times, not what is needed for national security. It is impossible to know everything about everyone, no matter what your budget is. That's the point that's being argued, not the state of national security.

And so, there is no one who knows EVERYTHING about me, just like I said. And it is impossible to nkow everything about everyone, most people don't remember everything about themselves. If they hired enough people to keep tabs on EVERYone, then how could they be sure that there weren't spies in the system? It would take at least a fourth of the world's population to do so, and that would be with everyone watching 3 people 24/7, and with everyone being able to understand the language of all 3 people they are watching. I'mm not positive, but since China has a third of the world's population, and India has quite few people in it, I doubt that there's enough people in the United States to do what you're talking about. Definitely not with all of our other needs being taken care of. You're talking about survailence on everyone at all times, not what is needed for national security. It is impossible to know everything about everyone, no matter what your budget is. That's the point that's being argued, not the state of national security.
I'm sorry, that would be without including the people watching the people watching everyone else, which I believe is 1/12 more of the world's population if you stick to 3 people assigned to a person.

Computers.

Being able to watch and listen to individuals is not the same as 'knowing' them. You would have to be able to read minds to do that. Wouldn't you?

Who would be watching the 3 people assigned to watching me (they'll be pretty bored by now)?

And so, there is no one who knows EVERYTHING about me, just like I said. And it is impossible to nkow everything about everyone, most people don't remember everything about themselves. If they hired enough people to keep tabs on EVERYone, then how could they be sure that there weren't spies in the system? It would take at least a fourth of the world's population to do so, and that would be with everyone watching 3 people 24/7, and with everyone being able to understand the language of all 3 people they are watching. I'mm not positive, but since China has a third of the world's population, and India has quite few people in it, I doubt that there's enough people in the United States to do what you're talking about. Definitely not with all of our other needs being taken care of. You're talking about survailence on everyone at all times, not what is needed for national security. It is impossible to know everything about everyone, no matter what your budget is. That's the point that's being argued, not the state of national security.


You don't get what I'm saying at all. I never said that people would know, I'm saying a computer could easily track every human on earth. A computer actually can track 6 billion people and know what each are doing.

Being able to watch and listen to individuals is not the same as 'knowing' them. You would have to be able to read minds to do that. Wouldn't you?

Who would be watching the 3 people assigned to watching me (they'll be pretty bored by now)?

You can read brainwaves. The state of your brain when it's asleep, it's in a certain wave, and it's different when you are awake, and this is well known. A computer could know how many people are asleep and how many people are awake. Although I admit this would be insanely expensive, it's still possible.

So while you may not be able to, literally read a mind, you can get enough information from the waves to figure out the kinds of moods and types of thoughts within a general range. So yes, brains can be scanned by computers, and yes every human can be tracked by a computer. All money can be tracked by a computer as well so that every transaction is tracked, and while no individual human will be able to literally know everything about a person, all the databases in the world do know everything about everyone. That's my point, technology is at a point where everything is known.

Proof -
fMRI
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/lying.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_MRI

Computers, are so advanced, that security will eventually be absolute.

And so, there is no one who knows EVERYTHING about me, just like I said. And it is impossible to nkow everything about everyone, most people don't remember everything about themselves. If they hired enough people to keep tabs on EVERYone, then how could they be sure that there weren't spies in the system? It would take at least a fourth of the world's population to do so, and that would be with everyone watching 3 people 24/7, and with everyone being able to understand the language of all 3 people they are watching. I'mm not positive, but since China has a third of the world's population, and India has quite few people in it, I doubt that there's enough people in the United States to do what you're talking about. Definitely not with all of our other needs being taken care of. You're talking about survailence on everyone at all times, not what is needed for national security. It is impossible to know everything about everyone, no matter what your budget is. That's the point that's being argued, not the state of national security.

BY the way, you said that it takes a lot of people, you are correct. Don't you realize, that this would create jobs?

I look foward to the panopticon singularity, but at the same time I know it's going to cause a bunch of new problems, like stalking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon_Singularity
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/rant/panopticon-essay.html
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3484351

You don't get what I'm saying at all. I never said that people would know, I'm saying a computer could easily track every human on earth. A computer actually can track 6 billion people and know what each are doing.
My bad. Ithought you met that it's possible for an individual to know every person on Earth.
today it's possible to know everything about everyone
when you couldn't get to know everyone on earth

BY the way, you said that it takes a lot of people, you are correct. Don't you realize, that this would create jobs?

I look foward to the panopticon singularity, but at the same time I know it's going to cause a bunch of new problems, like stalking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon_Singularity
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/rant/panopticon-essay.html
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3484351
If it was human resource, the world would have to come together just to have enough food, and I'm not sure if there's enough people that we could meet all of our modern needs, because that would be like a third of the world just on global security. If you're talking about computerized security, it would be very hard to program a computer to make the distinction of whether someone is a threat or not.

If it was human resource, the world would have to come together just to have enough food, and I'm not sure if there's enough people that we could meet all of our modern needs, because that would be like a third of the world just on global security. If you're talking about computerized security, it would be very hard to program a computer to make the distinction of whether someone is a threat or not.

It wouldn't be hard to program computers to do it. I'm sure computers are already doing it.

Explain the simplicities of it to me then.