Civilization has nothing to do with freedom or tolerance

Actually I think you have it back wards. Our desires and ambitions are the expression of our individuality. Thus, nf's goal will ultimately fail because he is suppressing the symptom, not the cause.

People will just find new ways to circumvent the system because it has made that the only available venue for creative expression. The more authoritarian an institution, the more people feel challenged to mess with the system to survive the inevitable corruption and bureaucracy, as any one in the military can testify to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can say it however you want.

Here from Wiki:

"Individuality is the state or quality of being an individual; a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs, goals, and desires."

I agree, but it would be pretty easy to stamp out anything that goes against the goals of the group and the group only. Individual freedom of expression would not be allowed to flourish. There would be consequences to such actions.

As you said, all the creative energy would be spent fighting the institution.

I agree that they would try and find a way.

My point was, because individuality would not be allowed or encouraged Norse's world can't have both individual creative license and minds that are only there to serve the groups goals.

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suppose I have to draw a distinction: free thought in itself wouldn't necessarily be supressed, but rather notions of greed and disloyalty

i.e, people can have free thought........insofar as the thought of changing the system or being disloyal to the system never crosses their minds. These notions, along with greed and egoism, would have to be rooted out as they are dangerous to the collective

Obviously you can. Happiness is an emotion that comes from the brain; all we need to do is artificially induce it, and then insert a chip in everybody's head to make them happy. We could also insert small chips that carry a receiver and a mechanism for sending an electric surge throughout the body large enough to be lethal, so if anybody goes rogue, the surge will kill them. Each chip would have unique code specific to that individual.

Most of what is done in Brave New World can already be done.

Scientific is understanding how the world works; I don't see where freedom and philosophy have to come into play in order for you to understand how to split the atom or better harness energy

Everybody would be limited, i.e, drones working for the collective good. Only a less restricted governing class wouldn't be limited. The only thing that would be removed would be egoism and individual desire.

Survival nonetheless. And as I said, happy drones.

Nope.

But that can be said about any revolution.

Did they adopt any sort of biotechnology, cloning, and neurology into their efforts?

I'm not arguing this from a libertarian position, I'm arguing this on the notion that human survival and survival of civilization are the ultimate "good"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who decides which areas "matter"? Those humans who have been programmed to decide these things? Who programs those humans to program the humans that decide which areas matter? Those humans who have been programmed to program the humans that decide... ad infinitum

Hopefully, you get my drift, although that hopefulness has lately been turning to doubt and discouragement when dealing with you Norse...

Point is, at the origin of creative thought you have to have creative people, in this case to decide which areas matter enough to be researched. Otherwise you face stagnation, and that which does not grow, dies. If you have any creative humans, they must be freed from the drone mentality. If you free them from the drone mentality, they are going to catch on to what's happening, and voila! The resistance is born.

Perhaps you would keep your "creative", non brainwashed people under lock and key. History has shown that imprisoning creative people subdues their creativity, for some unknown reason.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How do you propose to overcome this, Norse? And just for kicks, why don't you turn your considerable, although extremely warped intellect, towards devising a system based on individuals wants, desires and motivations? If you could come up with a non-invasive way to channel the abilities of eccentric, individualistic members of the populace towards helping "perfect" society (to use one of your favorite words), you might just make some serious progress.

Me thinks suppression and oppression ain't the way to go about it though, call me crazy if you will...

 

OK. I'll respond to you.

This is simple; it can be determined objectively from the perspective that human survival is desirable. What this means are that the necessities, food, water, shelter would already be points of interest for improvement...and these do not require philosophical thought.

As for other things; if human survival is desirable, then disaster prevention and reaction would be areas of interest. If human expansion is desirable, then better methods to harness energy would be areas of interest; if human survival is desirable, clean energy is an area of interst.

It all stems from an initial point: in the interest of the survival of the collective organism.

Similar to a bee hive; food matters, the hive matters, reproduction matters, efficiency and productivity matters, health matters, and happiness.....wouldn't necessarily although with technology happiness could be only a pill away.

In fact, if happiness improves productivity, then every human could be created so that they are only happy when performing their specific task

Also creative...in what sense? People would be bound only in certain ways; they'd have a role to fulfill, and notions of disloyalty would be removed. Thus, they can be creative and think freely but they are still always bound, and always desire, the survival of the machine.

It's called anarcho capitalism

Although this isn't suppression or opression.........people wouldn't be opressed because they wouldn't be against the system; they would be programmed and conditioned to fit perfectly into the system, to be for the system.

It's civilized, and people are happy and productive....isn't that what you want?

 

Norse,

Well you are asking way too much of your control mechanisms.

There is no way that it can be done. It's either control of thought or not.

As I said before, once you open that box there is no way to close it.

I think you have run into a pivotal point in the world you are creating.

Will you allow individuals to have their individuality or not ?

The answer to that question will determine what kind of society you end up with.

 

Since the dawn of possessions no one has ever been able to surpress greed and disloyalty.

You can either harness them or let them destroy you.

 

Only in so far as it doesn't interfere with the survival and stability and efficiency of the collective organism

They did not use genetic engineering and conditioning.

Clones would be raised in special state-run institutions until they reach maturity and during this time they will undergo intensive conditioning.

 

So we've moved on to discussing a hypothetical situation detailing the potential qualities of eugenics now?

I must say, it's almost time to move this thread....

 

It's still on topic; we're discussing eugenics in relation to its effect on civilization and what it would entail.

There is next to nothing political about this, anyhow.

 

Assuming that some sort of eugenic policy was enacted, and then discussing the supposed ramifications thereof, and in particular how they affected freedom and tolerance would be on topic. It just seems like the discussion is moving away from paying attention to the relevant issue: freedom and tolerance....

 

And once it does interfere ? Then what ?

What do you think allowing them to pursue their dreams and ambitions will lead to.

There is not enough detail in your answer as to how you expect to have both. Not good enough I'm afraid.

 

Not at all; eugenics and other future technologies will mean that we can have perfect efficiency as well as happiness. Freedom and tolerance become obsolete.

 

Given that then, once more you're revising the thread topic: it is your contention now that freedom and tolerance are of little, if any value to society.
Instead of politics, the discussion has now moved to one of aesthetic import.

 

My initial point was that civilization has nothing to do with freedom or tolerance; as the thread evolved and people apparantly disagreed, eugenics presented the opportunity to demonstrate perfectly how it is true indeed that civilization has nothing to do with freedom or tolerance, although this was a truth regardless, we can now have efficiency and happiness.

 

Boy, you outdid yourself with that one Norse!
:roflmao:

Does it ever occur to you to wonder at these mutually contradictory statements you some up with? I bet you eat a lot of jumbo shrimp...

 

How does artistic thought or philosphical thought to the extent you are suggesting have anything to do with making computers faster or better harnessing energy?

Regardless, individuals can be artistic and think.....only insofar as they remain bound to the collective.

 

Proof that you've never bothered to read a page of philosophy in your life, Norse...

 

Really? On the contrary I've read numerous philosphical texts, from Confucius's Analects to Mein Kampf

Honestly, your posts are becoming too predictable: you go to a thread, ignore the topic and simply resume insulting me.