How many hours do you think most kids watch T.V. or maybe sleep in? They do it because they can't think of anything else to do and are bored. If people had everything (and possibly no emotions, which would rule out bordom.) they would be extremly useless.
But all knowledge would be implanted into your mind, making books worthless. RPing is enjoyable because we have our characters face danger. Let's say no one experienced danger. How would roleplaying be fun? :P
Fiction Books. And not all knowledge will be implanted, only how to speak language and other basic maths science etc. But the roleplaying characters could experience dangers.
Why not all knowledge? Wouldn't that be better? (logic speaking, of course. If we can implant all knowledge, why not implant all knowledge?)
Yeah, if you've never experienced danger, you wouldn't know what danger is, thus, they would not experience danger.
1. So that enjoyment in learning what we want would be there. So the fun of books would be there.
2. Have I experianced a monster chasing after me? Yet I can imagine what it would be like.
2. You've experienced fear. If you've never experienced fear you can't imagine fear. And not all people enjoy roleplaying.
1. Why though? You'd end up with the problem of teachers being needed.
1. Even if we implant all knowledge, fiction would still be enjoyable to read.
2. Fear will still be experienced. What about the crushing fear that people will discover you have crush on x .
1. Not everyone enjoys reading.
2. Not really. We have fear of revealing those stuff since we fear rejection. But if we don't fear anything, everything we ever wanted was given to us, we wouldnt care. Also, lust is a flaw. Not allowed. Festers jealousy. Should be removed like bad hatred, bad greed, bad laziness.
1. Then there are many other things to do, as I have listed earlier.
2. I think you took the "remove all flaws" to literally.
1. Boredom arises when everything is given to you. I'm bored right now, so I'm arguing about this topic. If all of life was like this, I'd commit suicide. (and I've considered suicide at some points in life.)
2. Not at all. In a perfect world, all flaws should be gone. That's what you want. I'm taking it as they said. We don't want any flaws, so we removed all flaws. Can't take that too literally, it has one possible meaning.
1. Even I have considered Suicide.
2. A perfect world with no flaws would be boring. Thus only some would be removed.
1. So.... You agree that of your perfect world existed a great deal of people would kill themselves out of boredom?
2. ......... And which flaws should you remove? All flaws can harm others. A perfect world would suck, that's what I've been trying to tell you for this whole debate. Perfect world can not exist with flaws, otherwise it's not perfect.
Yep. Questions without answers can't be answered.
Ill point out that I've complained to my rabbis about how in heaven, we get everything we want. (and that I consider that bad). I'm not someone who would consider having everything you ever wanted for free is good.
I don't like the concept of heaven. I mean really, forever?
Day 99999999999999999999999999999999 of being in heaven:
I wish I could end this.
I wish I could end this.
...
I wish I could end this.
Not actually what heaven is, according to Judaism at least, but I get bored of discussing religion with most people. Only a couple of people I enjoy talking to about religion.
At least this is how it is in Christianity. I hate all "forever" things. No matter what, you'll get bored.
Not exactly..... I mean, by definition, God could just instill everlasting joy, for eternity, and youd live euphorically and without a mind forever. I'd assume Ugilick could answer what you are saying better then I can, since Judaism has 'forever' in it, but a very different heaven.
Of course. That's why I had trouble understanding why I'd want heaven. Though, it's an apt description of the perfect world (Your view of heaven). Everything is given to you. No war, no plague, no harm. Would be utter boredom. Love the hypocrisy there, :P
I don't know Christianity, you'd need to talk to Ugilick about it if you wanted to debate that (assuming he would even discuss it with you). Judaism has a different type of heaven, one where people like you would hate it, and people like me would enjoy it. (as in, I like working for benefits, I'd hate free stuff. You want free stuff for no work.)
Not really. What's the difference between eternity and 80+-20 years? We don't know. To us, 80 years is an eternity.
I'll give an analogy:
You want a -insert really cool object-. Once you get -really cool object- you'll play with it, and use it up as much as you can. You will be in euphoric joy. Then, you get bored of it. It doesn't take long. Happiness without anything to stop it is boring.
A book exemplifies this perfectly. don't remember it's name, where people would strap themselves up with a machine that would give them bliss. (it was a drug) In the end, after a week, the person in bliss would try and kill themselves, since they've experienced everything life had to offer. Now, that's a very short period of time, but it is a fiction story. 80 years is too long to experience nothing but joy. 10 years is too long.
Aman is correct every countries government has incredibly corrupt politicians and deep divisions between the political parties. Could you imagine if that was the entire world under one system it would be awful.
Have you seen Madglee? XD He's been here for 10 years, he's gone nuts!
*Claws reach out from the thread to devour Aman. Aman scatters.
The thing is, the Venus project sucks. In ordr for a world to feel perfect, it needs to be flawed, in order for a world to be perfect, it can't have any. Really, the fun in our world is all the many risks we take, big and small. If that were taken away, so would be the interesting flaws our minds rely on for happiness and entertainment.
I guess as long as the world doesn't go too far one way or the other, I'd be fine.
One Way: Anarchy, the wonderful Land of Do-As-You-Please, but only after a probable few years of death, destruction, and chaos, that probably nobody but the governmentalist conspiracy cranks would survive, utterly defeating the purpose. Not to mention I would have no greater power there either, I'd still be a skinny, untrained kid, people could push me around just like they could in and under government.
The Other: The Venus Project, because Aman and the Giver proved that it sucks, Facism, because V proved that it sucks, Communism, because Stalin, the Chinese Government, 8-million-kill-Mau (Tse-Tsunge/Zedong), and especially Liberty Prime, proved that it sucks, Totalitarianism, because Hitler, and pretty much evryone else who's ever been in total power proved that it sucks.
Another thing: Have you noticed how virtually no government in the history of the world, even Anarchy, actually lived up to the ideals on which they were based?
I don't know if you are right about anarchy. While, no I don't support abolishing all government, I have no doubt many communities will survive. (The community I live in is somewhat self reliant. We have our doctors, our cleaners, our food, a gun club, we have our own EMT service. And this is in a normal, none paranoid community.) So, while Anarchy will cause lots of death, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Eh Stalin wasn't a communist, he was just a dictator using communism as a front. Marxist communism has never been instilled in a goverment
Marxist Communism has it's own flaws and that's why it was always easier to change and fit to a more favorable government.
Communism is good for tiny isolated self-sustaining places but doesn't really work with anything bigger than Ireland. (In my opinion at least.)
Maybe it's unrelated, but I found that the examples with the russian inventors very nicely showed off how shitty comunism is:
http://www.cracked.com/article/207_6-inventors-who-got-jack-shit-changing-modern-world/
Still, Liberty Prime is the prime example of how many ways communism sucks, and he doesn't even support a real democracy!
This is such a great thought-provoking thread and the base issue seems to be 'how much should the government interfere?'
On one end of the spectrum we have Minimal Interference. No food stamps or welfare. Each person maintains roads around their property. Schools and hospitals are privatized, maybe even law enforcement.
On the other end we have Ideal Communism*. When you go to your job, you don't get a paycheck at the end of the day, the government gets it. In return, you have no personal expenses. You live in a house with no rent. If you don't feel well you go to the hospital for free. When new media (movies, games, music) is available, it is freely distributed among the population.
There are clearly problems with both extremes.
Let's say we have a family of four: Man, wife, son, and daughter. Mom and dad each make 30,000USD a year and live in a medium sized city for a total income of 60k a year. Not rich, but they survive. Now let's say mom dies. Dad has to take care of 3 people on 30,000 a year, but it's not possible. Not alone. So what happens to our fictional family with a minimal government? No welfare, the family loses their house. There would be no orphanages because we don't have government assistance. The kids probably have to beg, maybe live with family if they have any. Dad would be fine alone in a one bedroom apartment.
Sound familiar? Maybe a little like a book called "The Jungle"? If you haven't read it and are interested in sociological issues, it's a great story.
On the other extreme, the Ideal Communism*, why go to work? A doctor gets the same house and food and care as someone who doesn't work. I think many people would work because they like what they do, but not nearly enough of the population.
I'm not a sociologist or an economist. I don't know enough macroeconomics to fully understand the health care and welfare issues facing the USA right now. I know it is good for us to discuss and be aware of. My opinion from what I've read (from fiction like The Jungle and Brave New World to news articles and published reports on government spending) that there is no perfect solution. Some people suggest drug testing or other ways to make sure people on welfare don't abuse it. So far, every test proposed would cost more than it would save. I definitely wouldn't want it cut completely. I know many people who needed welfare due to no fault of their own and wouldn't have gotten by otherwise. I'm 24 and if not for Obamacare I wouldn't have health insurance. Not that I don't work: every job I've had has cut its benefits so much that what you pay in premiums doesn't cover what they charge in deductibles and copays. On the other hand, I do hate to think of people who have child after child, knowing that they get more and more assistance, sometimes enough that they barely have to work, while we (the normal working tax payers) have to support them. I don't have a solution, so I don't criticize any of the current systems. I think they're doing the best they can.
*Ideal Communism: all resources equally shared by all citizens. No rich or poor, all middle class. There has never been a real life example of Ideal Communism.
An easy solution to the fault you listed with ideal communism would be to kick out people who didn't work from the country. It's not the only problem with the view, but it's a fairly easily solvable one.
Is the US where you Canadians kick out people who try to cash in on your excellent health care system who haven't put enough into it? ;)
*Edit:
*reads more about health care in Canada* this sounds pretty awesome but the issue with wait times is crazy. Is that because people just go to the hospital whenever they feel icky, instead of 30 seconds before death like many Americans have to due to fear of crushing debt? Also, do the doctors in Canada 'try' as much as their US counterparts? It seems to me that that if the government is only going to pay them x amount for their care either way it wouldn't have the same incentive as a doctor here (in the US) who can basically charge what they want. Seriously. If you look at the bill print out, and manage not to become suicidally depressed, you can find hospitals charging 10$ for a dose of Tylenol or 5$ for a bandaid. Also, is it an issue for those who try and take really good care of themselves, like eating well and exercising, that never go to the hospital to pay the same amount of taxes as someone who is obese and diabetic due to their life choices and must go to the hospital frequently?
It's not an issue for them, I, for one, work out regularly, play in two sports teams (can't say anything about the healthiness of the food I eat though). I still go to the hospital when I have broken bones, i'm bleeding internally, etc...
But yeah, it's usually just because of a bunch of annoying hypochondriacs, the wait times are ridiculous.
The doctors work very well actually, and they get payed about the same that normal doctors get payed (I think). And i'm pretty sure that the doctors charge our goverment just as much as they charge you in the US (they swipe our medicare cards for EVERYTHING)
I know that I had no complaints about my last doctor, at least. He hated most of his patients, but apparently he has a soft spot for me or something, he did an excellent job, surgery went splendidly, and he was extremely friendly.
While I agree that the anarchist(Ish) creation isn't going to work, I think you are forgetting a very big part of human behavior. Charity. While Ayn Rand thought charity was evil, she didn't want to ban it, she just wanted the government to not force people to do so. Many communities in the nation have families that they themselves are supporting, without the use of welfare (I'll point to my community again), by giving charity.
Now, the family would have to lessen the apartment to something smaller (if there is such a thing), and it would be rougher, charity orginization due a lot more then we credit them. (and of course, orphanages with charity work)
Honestly though? I think we should have some sort of welfare system, that allows people to get back on their feet rather then live in luxury (I'd point to my thread about a surfer who dines on luxury foods paid by the tax payer). (and doesn't allow for the rich to bypass it. I know a family who own a restaurant, live in an extravagant house, but manage to hide it all and get welfare)
I remember that Milton Freedman said something along the lines that big buisness would finance schools, since if they don't they'd lose good employees.
As for the communist theory, I feel you may be a little optimistic (thankfully. Having 100% pessimists on this site would be really bad :P). I know people who love their work. If they didn't get paid for it? They wouldn't do it, since it's a lot of hard work. They may work, but far less hours.
How about if such person does not go to work, he is denied services? But this could be abused and corrupted...
The young people would be the exceptions, they are unable to support themselves, but once they reach a certain age they would no longer have a choice.
The old and the sick die. They are not useful, they are not good enough to work in the system, they will either be culled or ignored.
Efficiency is not a fan of compassion.
Then some idiot decides that they should get "rights" and marches... *gasp* peacefully for them! Disgusting thoughts. :P
For all who say 'let's just kill off those who don't work!" you gotta remember something. Why should a doctor work 12 hours a day, and get paid equally to a garbage man? Why should he get paid like a piano player (assuming such a job is considered acceptable even)? Why shouldhe get paid the same as a job that's far easier?
Lets say the smart were paid the same as the dumb who work? Why would anyone work hard/take hard jobs? It's stupid to work harder for the same pay.
If the CEO was paid the same as the others, why should he be working so hard?the reason people work hard is to get paid better. If your job doesn't matter, I can say with certanty that most doctors would stop practicing.
This: For all who say 'let's just kill off those who don't work!"
And this: you gotta remember something. Why should a doctor work 12 hours a day, and get paid equally to a garbage man? Why should he get paid like a piano player (assuming such a job is considered acceptable even)? Why shouldhe get paid the same as a job that's far easier?
Lets say the smart were paid the same as the dumb who work? Why would anyone work hard/take hard jobs? It's stupid to work harder for the same pay.
If the CEO was paid the same as the others, why should he be working so hard? The reason people work hard is to get paid better. If your job doesn't matter, I can say with certanty that most doctors would stop practicing.
Are not related in the slightest. Seriously, absolutely no relation whatsoever between the two.
I would imagine that most doctors go into the profession because they care about saving the lives of others, so, pretty bad example. The CEO one also isn't the best example. The position of a CEO gives you power over others, people like power. While money wouldn't be the big game changer, the control a CEO would have over the lives of his workers would be very powerful indeed, if you consider that people deemed too useless for work would be left without any sustenance whatsoever, that's basically a death sentence unless they can find another job. Also, I would imagine that there would be a limited amount of job slots for everything, just as there is in real life, meaning that people would have no choice but to take the jobs that they didn't want because the jobs they DO want are taken. Also, extra incentive for doctors that will never go away: Chicks dig doctors. (Female doctors will have to be happy with the good feeling that comes with saving a life)
I would still work as hard as a pastry chef, no matter what the pay, because I love making food and feeding people. But there would be no customer service. Everyone hates those jobs.
And what if people didn't have a choice? What id the option was between that job or no job? (as it often is today)
Ha ha, you don't know the doctors I know then. XD I can tell you with certanty, most doctors I know, would jump at the chance to not work. (this includes my Dad, a gastroenterologist (not my dad) my uncle, the doctors in my old medical center, every dentist I've ever known, a private practice doctor, another private practice doctor etc, practicing is a PAIN. It's not a fun job, it's torturous (quoted directly from my dad). They work all day, and, for some, they don't save lives like a surgeon or an EMT, they take care of drug addicts. And they (not all, but all I've met personally) hate doing that. The reason they are doctors is to make money, part of the reason the most liberal man I know hates Obamacare is because it makes his job lose money. (another doctor.)
Also, what you're saying is that you'd force people to be docors.... Smart. After all, it's not like you need an education for being a doctor. Forcing people to save lives is stupid.
Forceing people to work is stupid period, simply because you'd have a massive revolt.
It's not that you're forcing them to work, it's that if they don't work, they will not receive anything. it would be their choice, they would just die of starvation due to their inneficiency. It's technically the same in our current society, except the difference would be that no one could afford to support anyone else. So you either work for the society, or the society does not help you. It's an even trade.
Also, in a society where everyone earned the same amount of money, it would be near impossible for anyone to get away with selling drugs, as almost all money would have to be spent on food or other necessities, so drug addicts probably wouldn't be treated as often. The goverment is keeping charge of the money right? They're making sure that everyone is equal correct? So they'll know exactly what someone is using their money for, if they notice that someone is richer than another, they'll investigate him. If they notice someone doesn't have enough money for food, they'll investigate it. Having everything regulated would be a huge slap to the face to any illegal-industry that relies on selling stuff for money (most of them).
Of course, perhaps the dealers could arrange for trades instead (like sexual favors, or certain items) but that's another topic.
Okay, let's say I wanted to learn piano. Would that be allowed by the government? If not, then you wouldn't be allowing painters or authors to exist either, I'd assume.
Then we'd get into the problem with Brave New World, where all pleasure is banned, since it's a waste.
And, again, you're forcing people to do a job they don't want to do. Remember that America revolted for taxation, what you're doing here is forcing people to do everything you want them to do. Not going to last long before someone gets pissed off, and a revolt begins.
Aman, you understand that i;m not recommending this system right? I'm not that heartless, i'm just saying that communism could successfully work in a society if done correctly, which it never will be.
Okay, let's say I wanted to learn piano. Would that be allowed by the government? If not, then you wouldn't be allowing painters or authors to exist either, I'd assume.
Never heard of it,
the music I listen to is (if not Jewish/Hebrew) Elvis and Cash (along with, of I get the radio working, country music. :P) My taste in music is hated by most of my friends. XD
But the Israeli music I listen to is either old popular music (music from my mom's childhood) or independent musicians like Amir Ben-Ayun (all Hebrew music, so can't really recommend it to anyone who doesn't speak Hebrew, Unfortunatly.)
Hmm, that would be hard to decide (What novels would be accepted)
I suppose that perhaps sample copies could be distributed to volunteers, who would read the books and determine it's quality. Should the books be determined good enough (likely with a pre-requesite of a certain number of people liking it) then they would be considered good enough to be made official works, and the people who produced the works would be considered full-time authors/artists. (After all, their efforts contribute to the level of happiness in the society, it would make little to no sense to cut them out if you're trying to run a prosperous, efficient world. Happiness contributes to prosperity, I should hope, I know I do better work when i'm happy.)
Perhaps some authors would be dropped, and it would be unfortunate, but an efficient system makes the most people happy with the least amount of work. Making niche groups happy would not be in it's interests. Those author's lack of popularity would be their downfall in that society, just as it is in our own.
As for the society crumbling, I've read only a few dystopian novels (such as the giver, or farenheit 451), and i've seen a few movies (like equilibrium, which I MUST recommend), and in almost all of them the crumbling of society was either evident or heavily implied.
Though I don't much like dystopean novels, I find them all to basically be the same story, so I get tired of them after a while.
As for the people revolting, I doubt it. The system would make the majority of all people happy, the revolters would be singled out as idiots, people who are too lazy to contribute to the system, people do not want to work, so instead they attack everyone else (You might recognize these people as thieves in our own society).
They would likely be quickly killed/incarcerated/banished.
As for everyone hating what they're doing, you forget that a huge amount of someone's unsatisfaction with their jobs comes from them either having too much work time, or them not being able to score their dream job. In this case, work times would (hopefully) be "fixed", so that people like doctors wouldn't have to work ridiculous 12-hour shifts (this likely wouldn't be a problem anyways, since the patient numbers would likely fall drastically due to previously mentionned things) In the case of Hypochondriacs, they could simply be refused medical attention if they wasted too much time (it may seem strict to you, but if you waste everyone's time and do nothing, then you are an unnecessary drain). In the case of you having an unsatisfying job due to you losing out on your dream job, too fucking bad, that happens to most of the human population now, suck it up and do what you need to do, and try to enjoy your job.
The giver didn't have that occur. (I think). The character just becomes a hermit.
---
Not from my perspective. Of its the doctors, scientists, etc, they wouldn't be considered idiots. Ever read 'The moon is a Harsh Mistress'? Great novel, but the peopl who made the revolt were headed by intellectuals, and ignoring the super computer they had, they did it using a strategy that didint even need the computer (it was used since it was uncuruptable), which was basically cause Disension. If the leaders of the community (doctors, buisness men, etc) quit, they'd screw up everything the system was based on.
---
You also need to realize those long hours are neccasary. Now, you could pull a Gataca, and this problem would be fixed, but thats as bad as the Venus Project. (and I'm not going to argue that such a cibilization couldn't exist, it could, you just wouldn't have emotions). Doctors don't work long hours just because they want to, they are constantly needed.
*They are constantly under-staffed and stuck with too many patients, most of whom don't really need doctors.
More doctors+ Less patients= no problem.
-------
In the Giver, the memories apparently all return to the population upon a Giver's death (It's implied in the book, as the giver mentions that when his last apprentice died, her memories were given to the other around her, and he had to take them all back), so when the kid died (and yes, I believe that he died of cold, the ending was not a real family, it was either a happy memory the giver shared with him which he now remembered in his last moments or a hallucination) then his memories would be thrown to the rest of the society, which, with the sudden influx of memories, would likely collapse.
-------
Not from my perspective. Of its the doctors, scientists, etc, they wouldn't be considered idiots. Ever read 'The moon is a Harsh Mistress'? Great novel, but the people who made the revolt were headed by intellectuals, and ignoring the super computer they had, they did it using a strategy that didint even need the computer (it was used since it was uncorruptable), which was basically cause Disension. If the leaders of the community (doctors, buisness men, etc) quit, they'd screw up everything the system was based on.
Why? Why would doctors and scientists lead a revolution? The society proposed is near-perfect in theory, though cruel to those who are unable to provide for the society. It lets people enjoy the pleasures in life, it stops unemployment, it keeps everyone equal (though this will likely not be a desire. Equality is desired only by those who have not experienced power or money, yet have been subject to it's uses. But for this purpose, let's assume that what all those idealistic fools think they want is actually what they want). It would not stop advancement, literature, art, musical entertainment, and it would be efficient, making sure that everything worked in an organized manner. It would be cruel, but cruelty is necessary, cruelty is a good thing in the right circumstances. The problems with dystopian novels is that they automatically assume that you must cut out all human emotion to make something work well, but sometimes human emotion can be your friend, it can earn you co-operation, it can be used.
Of course, my system would never work. It will forever remain nothing but a theoretical system, because people don't want equality, people don't want efficiency, people don't want to work for the good of the whole group. People want power, money, they want more and more and more. People are selfish, distrusting, hateful, greedy bastards. (also, I have no plans to conquer the world)
The ideal world would support equality, making it so that no one person had an advantage over another in material things, it would work like clockwork, with everyone doing their part, and everything unnecessary or unhelpful would be removed. It would support individuality, by giving people a certain amount of free time in order to let them explore their own interests and desires. Except people do not want an ideal world, people like our world, they just don't know it yet. People like that greed triumphs over all, they enjoy using power to abuse or injure others. They wish for equality without fully knowing what that means, and so they wish for something they don't want.
More doctors=Less of another field. We don't have an infinite pool of smart people.
---
Difference of opinions about the guy. I always imagined it was that he actually had those memories (but then again, I read that in 5th grade, when I was an optimist).
----
See, I don't think it would support individuality. The whole system is based in everyone being the same, and as such, not individuals. Of course it could never work since people are flawed (only way for it to work would be to make Cyber Men), but even if it could, we wouldn't have individuals. The goal is to make everyone want to work for a single goal, the betterment of the world, which removes personal wishes and wants.
----
Why would people revolt? Since some people have feelings? XD If you killed off the old and the sick, people would care. Unless you want a society like the giver, brave new world,Anthem, etc, it's unstable since revolt is likely to occur.
More doctors=Less of another field. We don't have an infinite pool of smart people.
Difference of opinions about the guy. I always imagined it was that he actually had those memories (but then again, I read that in 5th grade, when I was an optimist).
I think a reason we don't have more doctors now is that it's very daunting for a college freshman to consider. 8 years of college plus 4 years of internship before you can really make any money is not something many 18 year olds find appealing, especially if they are going to have to take loans to pay for it. In our hypothetical communism, they wouldn't be worried about going through their 20's with no money, and I think there would be a higher percentage of educated people in general, including the medical field. Education would be free, not just no tuition, but also counting loss of wages from not being able to work a full time job.
Lawyers aren't capable of the same field. Lawyering is not a science field.
---
Dont think so, though we know of other camps that would have that occur.
---
Not at all. Your goal is for everyone to want everyone else to be equal. Selfishness is the counter to that (as well as greed). Personalities would conflict to that. One person wants X, it's unequal if he doesn't get it. Bng selfish would mean you'd want yourself to be above others, and that includes your family.
---
I agree that most dont give a shit, it's true. However, that's because no one is acting. If you suddenly hear of a revolt in X, you'd feel more interested in this. (and information spreads, no matter what you do to stop it). Action causes more action. People don't act because no one else is. All revolts started with a few people complaining. *few is not meant to be taken 100% literally.
Lawyers tend to be intelligent. You said the problem was a lack of intelligent people.
---
Well, nothing more to add here
---
If no one wants to be equal, then the entire system is not worth considering in the first place. The entire system is based on people not placing that much value on material things. I know that this is not the case in real life, but for this conversation to make even a modicrum of sense, we need to assume that people wish for equality, which is how i've been thinking about this whole thing. Obviously, a system that is based on equality would never work in a society that does not want it, so we're pretending we've found an equality-loving society (let' say the Amerindians, who highly supported this) that is as advanced as the US or Canada in terms of technology and everything (just ignore the amerindien poverty and horrible living conditions and lack of advanced technology, we've entered the world of theory). Now, putting yourself above the lives of others is still a remarkable show of selfishness, despite the society's equality, that equality only comes for people who join the society, so while it equalizes them, it also still puts them above anyone who isn't in the society, making them more important, giving them a sense of both safety and power. It should also reinforce the fact that the society is the only real way to survive, as knowing that being left behind by the society would pretty much mean death would likely also unintentionally reinforce the thought that the society was a good thing, that being in it guaranteed safety, the freedom to choose, and the ability to live a life more or less free from danger (unless of course you choose to actively seek it)
---
No intelligent government would try to stop the flow of indignant information. That gives people something to latch on to. "they're trying to stop, they're going to silence us because they're scared!" If they just let the information spread, but they keep things peaceful (relatively) then most people would just dismiss the revolutionners, either out of sheer laziness or disinterest, seeing that no one, not even the government that they were opposing, cared enough to go against it.
And consider this: People protesting the society would basically be declaring that they no longer wanted to live in it and contribute, so they would naturally be removed. It's not that they are being killed, or silenced, it's that they are not contributing, and they do not want to be part of the regime, so the society simply complies with their desires and kicks them out, leaving them completely alone, not bothering to deal with them at all. The protesters would quickly realize their mistakes, chances are that only a very select few people would continue sticking to the revolutionnary philosophy.
Those people would either die, or branch off and start their own community. Either one is fine for the society, it matters not to them that people leave them, they would not mind losing people, as long as there were enough people to support the system.
(Ugh, these posts take so long to write -_-')
Yeah, but some people are fit for X job, and not for Y job.
---
if we are pretending this system is perfect, of course it's perfect. :P You're basically saying, well, this system would work, if everything was perfect. Can't argue that it would t work if you are creating a world where everyone is actively seeking the betterment of the world. Again, that's not a normal civilization, to have that. You'd need to create Cyber Men. You can't say communism could work if everyone was perfect, since no one is perfect. Anything could work.
Capitalism would work, if everyone was hard working, we had infinite resources, and no one was stupid. This is pretty much your statement put on another title. Arguing that if everything everything was perfect it would work doesn't make sense.
---
If revolutionaries aren't silenced, they draw out everything. If you ignore them, they'd control everything. Revolutions have occurred, and the main reason they did was because people managed to send messages of dissent. The system would collapse from revolt.
If they took one city, they'd take another city, and another. And another. If ignored, they beat you, if not ignored they cause turmoil in your society.
If X society allowed you to love the way you wanted to, most would go there. It's basically taking it straight from Atlas Shrugged. A society where the good workers are well treated would end up attracting the good workers, leaving the bad in your society.
Meh
---
I'm not pretending the people are perfect, i'm pretending that they desire equality. Societies like this DO exist, and I am merely discussing a society where the one thing that is a definite pre-requesite (A desire for equality) is a given. Otherwise, there is no point in any discussion at all, as that is literally the one thing who's removal would make the entire system collapse.
---
And what would they draw out? The people would know what is happening to the older and sick people, that hardly means they would care. And since in this case, being ignored= death, probably via starvation, ignoring's a pretty good strategy.
And they will not "take" a city, that belongs to the society, them taking it would be equivalent to them stealing it. They would leave. If they did not go willingly, then they would go forcefully. People who do not contribute to the system are removed.
Meh?
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/the-genetics-of-job-choice
http://whartonmagazine.com/issues/spring-2010/genetics-in-the-workplace/
----
The only civilizations that have that are ones that are not advance (I believe). There is a reason for that. Read Anthem. Explains it perfectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella)
Then there isn't. Since its a huge deal. It requires us to return to such a lifestyle. Because, modern day? most would not want to live life like that.
----
Since the smart get to be paid better? Since the smart live better?
Im talking about a revolt. If a revolt occurs, and they take a city.... (Return to my last paragraph)
If people take military action against a society who's worst crime is ignoring people, these guys are a bunch of dicks. also, the rest of the society will slaughter them, in order to protect what is their own.
And Aman, you continue to ignore this:
If someone refuses to follow the society, they are removed. If someone is out of the society, they die. If you do not agree with them, you are kicked out, into the wild. If you want to come back, you have to accept the society, if you want to continue protesting, you die in the wild. The society does not want people who do not contribute, as i've repeated many, many times. They would be removed as they appeared, and organized revolt would be impossible.
As for the links, i'll read them tomorrow.
I barely trust doctors now. I really wouldn't be cool with going to a doctor who was forced to be one.
And I always assumed people became doctors because they wanted to help people. Aman has shattered my last bit of trust in hospitals.
Maybe the trade-off would be how many hours a week you have to work. Like higher skill/stress jobs would get to work less hours than easy slack-off jobs. Also zero-skill jobs, like cashiers at Walmart or whatever, maybe be mandatory for certain age groups, like under 21, so they get experience before getting a meaningful job?
Ha, sorry about that. But honestly? I'd actually be happier if doctors are aiming to get money then to help people. Since, screwing up and getting sued is a huge take on money. I know a doctor who did a experimental surgery on a woman I know (friend of my mom), and did it to help the woman? No, it Fucked up her life forever. (as in, she cut most of the woman's stomach, making it smaller, and now has the acid in the stomach fill it up and spill out into her body).
I trust people who are in it for money, since getting sued is anti-getting money, they'll be more careful.
I'd stay away from making cashiers forced teens. I'm a teen, and I hate dealing with teenagers. Think of the torture. :P
Hey, most of the people doing those jobs are high schoolers anyway. And if you don't want to be a cashier, you could do other entry level work, like janitor, unloading trucks, fast food, barista at Starbucks, etc. And we all must learn humility somewhere, a crappy job is as good a place as any. It would only be til you turn 21, or until you finish college and get your real job.. in our hypothetical communism that would probably last 3 weeks..
(mewithoutYou is an indie band from PA that uses a lot of Jewish imagery and themes in their music. You should check them out, they're one of my favorite bands)
Ha, Unfortunatly that's true, us (talking about myself, not you, since I assume (and am 99% sure) you aren't a teen anymore) teens need to learn to shut up when talking to authority. :P
(I'll check it out, sounds interesting.)
I would rather be a doctor or CEO rather than a garbage man. And this is the encouragement for the CEO: Bad perfomance means he'll be made to do a less appealing job.
If I got paid the same? Hell no. A couple hours of work driving a car around and then throwing garbage away, is far more appealing then working 12 hours a day, constantly stressed.
Turns, then. A person will have one "real" profession and everybody will take turns being a garbage man.
Garbage man is a real profession. Also, what you're suggesting is ridiculously inneficient, it wouldn't work.
Wow, so, how are you going to alternate doctors? Genius!
Here, garbage man, take care of these patients for me.
Person one learns how to be a doctor.
Person two learns how to be a doctor.
Person one is doctor for 3-4 days of the week and garbage man the other days.
Person two is doctor for 3-4 days of the week and garbage man the other days.
Person one is a skilled doctor
Person two is a shit doctor/retard.
---
Now, while not everyone will be an idiot, not everyone will be fit to be a doctor. Won't work.
Bleaugh, I don't we're ready as a species to do that yet, if ever.
Human nature to be greedy, emotional bastards who on several occasions be selfish enough to harm others for wants. Try to suppress it a little is fine and dandy, but trying to reach for "maximum efficiency" at our current state is impossible without inciting rebellions that would break the system all too easily. Throwing all pleasures away is like weaning a human who has been supplemented on human milk for 70 years. Yes, you can live without pleasures, but it'd make you go crazy without them. After all, not everyone is born and raised in such a manner that communism is a good idea, and then you'd have to factor in epidemics and natural disasters that would slow down the work for some people.
Reply