Well, to be frank, you already got your brown-shirts down pat, judging from the weekly horror stories about the TSA.
Well, to be frank, you already got your brown-shirts down pat, judging from the weekly horror stories about the TSA.
OMG...we agree. (Though the TSA keeps switching from Blue to White shirts)Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
But the government does have purview over legal contracts, spousal benefits, survivor benefits, and minor children protections. That's true for any couple (married or not, gay or straight) whose had a Will challenged in probate court, child custody battled in family court, or spousal benefits denied by SSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Sadly, non-married gay spouses still have to fight for being considered the primary family member to make medical decisions (even with Power of Attorney), hospital visitation rights, employee-spousal insurance coverage, veteran family and/or death benefits....and grandparents can sue for custody of minor children.
You may think marriage is nothing but a piece o' paper, but it's a contract that's been recognized by the law for hundreds of years, giving married spouses "special status". It makes more sense to extend those same rights to same-sex married couples, than expecting straight married couples to give up that legally recognized status.
Got nothin', eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I don't understand how you conclude that. In the prior statement you agree with my assertion that humanity can't sterilize the planet, then you say my view of things suggests I think I am god. I know your proof has more steps in it, can you lay them out so I can understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
In answer to the tree question - it depends on how you define sound. If you're a physicist, you say of course it does. I'm not a physicist, but of course it does.
Ugh. You're provoking a discussion of what civilization means. Nobody wants that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Also, I would argue 'caveman' society was incapable of the barbarism committed by the Nazis. You have to have the responsibility and compassion diluting capabilities of bureaucracy to achieve that level of cruelty and you need industry to achieve that level of efficiency. Cavemen might occasionally bludgeon to death members of another tribe, but if a sort of genocide occurred, which had to be rare since they wouldn't commonly have that kind of power over "the other," they would at least keep the females.
I have plenty, I was complaining about your unfair attitude towards the conversational dynamics.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
It was the way you said deep sea creatures wouldn't notice anything had happened, I suppose? I'm not sure what to call that human-centric type of statement, but it doesn't have anything to do with God. I'm asking you to lay out your definitions better...so I can understand what you meant, or if I took it too literally. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
<ie, remaining non-human planet life would "notice" changes in weather and/or their food sources, maybe even adapt to it before extinction, but of course it wouldn't be a cognitive awareness like humans have. Some of the 'smarter' species (like whales) would probably migrate to other waters, using group/herd/pod behavior that's reactionary--but also proactive and problem-solving--to the best of their abilities anyway.>
I was hesitant to ask this before, but it has been bothering me; what precisely is the difference between this and Fukuyama's claims? The predictive power seems to be, it'll work until it no longer does. This isn't very useful...Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If we combine Van Valen's and Spengler's ideas, it seems to me that the rise of totalitarianism is simply a matter of time. Thankfully, we cannot predict how deep time that'll be, perhaps we'll both be dead before it happens. But especially I would like to point out that the so-called rise of democracies that you high-light in this and other instances seems to fall, energetically, within the third instance of the Red Queen's doubts of dominion, and thereby I would be hesitant to place that much weight on it on the long term. But hopefully, the term will be long...
The problem with Fukuyama's claim is that relies on the assumption that all autocracies will gradually become more democratic (i.e. if democracies never become autocracies, the only way for everyone to end up democratic is if each autocracy somehow becomes a democracy), and this is an assumption that ignores the substantial number of countries that haven't appreciably democratized over the last half century. Meanwhile, there has never been a case of a long-standing, prosperous democracy becoming autocratic. In fact, countries with all the necessary democratic institutions never become even marginally autocratic. Have a look at the list of countries in the database below and try to find a single example of a country with a democracy score of 10 (all democratic institutions, regardless of how long they existed or how prosperous the country) going down to a 6 or 7 (marginally democratic).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Just because a moderately democratic, moderately prosperous Germany, with no prior history of democratic rule, a terrible economy, and sizable support for revanchism could become a totalitarian state doesn't mean that any modern democracy has much chance of doing the same. Even if there was a democratic country today that was as flawed as Weimar Germany, people do learn from history.
I wasn't suggesting that Weimar was anywhere near what we see today (I if anyone am familiar with how flawed an attempt it was!), the question is how far we can generalize from what has happened in the past 50 (100?) years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The Red Queen plays a zero-sum game, except when she doesn't, and I would be rather open to you suggesting that right now we're not. We invented petrolium, and uranium; the global population sky-rocketed. But I wouldn't be so dismissive of Spengler's basic ideas, and they imply that societies at some point do play the Red Queen's game. Which then implies...
Of course the predictive power of the Red Queen isn't very good for Minx's question, either; the rapid loss of petrolium and uranium will also herald an event of the third type from the Red Queen's perspective (most likely), and we have very poor theories of chaotic situations... We only know historically how mankind decides on the division of diminishing goods, and that prognosis isn't a happy one.
I would find it more likely that changes in society, technology and governance indicate that if/when Loki's democracies do end up changing models it will be to new muddled variations we haven't created models of yet. 100 years ago we hadn't conceived of totalitarianism *and I know there are or were people on this board who don't really see a difference between it and authoritarianism* but a number of states found themselves with governments distinct from those which came before and yet sharing some surprising similarities with each other despite differing politico-economic systems. Maybe new models will maintain election components and they will be viewed as democratic in character by the political scientists. Maybe there will be elements of corporatist-directed economic feudalism, which in turn responds to an unaccountable and unelected bureaucracy giving it an authoritarian tinge. Perhaps within that morass there will be a class of freeholders empowered to a libertarian dream by Web 4.0.
That's just pulling on a couple of recent threads about contemporary Western socio-politico-economic dynamics as brought up on this board. I couldn't even venture to guess what might come out of China and how it might influence future governance.
You're such an optimist! :D But yes, new things will come about. But I do not, for one, think they will be without barbed wire, and for this I am branded a lunatic :) (It isn't scientific, after all!)
Barbed wire? Barbed wire?! In a resource-scarce future? Why not just completely give in to the thieves and have them made completely out of copper while you're at it. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Deep sea life - like the ecosystems around the volcanic vents created by sea floor spreading - likely wouldn't be affected at all by the extinction of humanity even via a full scale nuclear exchange. ie they wouldn't "notice" any change.... this is nothing to do with powers of observation, but of the geographic separation their undersea world has from the surface. So in either case, even if I was talking about their simple perceptive abilities, how is that an expression of solipsism???Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Definition for reference:
sol·ip·sism[sol-ip-siz-uhm] Show IPAnoun1.Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
It is one of the most ironic things that I've yet to experience that Jean Paul was the one who said, "Hell is other people". What you say is true, in its way, we only need people, and we have them far more than metals...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Unfair how? I laid out my thinking to a fair level of detail. Then I asked you to do likewise with whatever you include in 'plenty.' Quid pro quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
That's not how it goes... It is easy to generate piles and piles of nonsense, but we're not interested in that, are we? You made a specific and limiting claim, I would like to see you cover all your bases... I am not sold, yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
You made a specific claim as well - humanity can destroy all life. I deny that claim and I discussed humanity's current destructive abilities to back it up. Then I asked you to point out whatever ability I missed. But you decline, (IMO likely because you go nothin'), citing how unfair it is to ask you to back up your claim. And that, btw, is not characteristic of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
What an unfair characterization of what transpired. But it is alright, Alexandr has taught me, I do not mind...Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
There is no theoretical limit to the power of the hydrogen bomb. And as Minx pointed out to me, as he wished the gnashing of teeth and the wailing on me, there is a moral aspect to this as well; even if I am a third-rate mind, the crimes I can perceive are still awful crimes, so should I speak them publically? And if I can think of them, someone else has, also, before...
The idea that we couldn't is either wishful or narrow-minded. We could. That is what we made of ourselves...
http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm
Genius Loki forgot to include the link to the democracy dataset. :o
The past might not be a perfect indicator of the future, but it is a pretty good indicator nevertheless. The world has faced numerous crises since WWII, and yet the number of established democracies has never decreased. There are also some pretty good theoretical reasons, supported by empirics, that suggest that most people in established democracies would be unwilling to see the creation of a totalitarian state. I could see economic problems leading to some scapegoating, but I really fail to see how and why it would lead people to abandon their democratic traditions and their own rights in order to let someone else make all the decisions for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
And we can build a dyson sphere as well. You and Choobs seem to be using two entirely different interpretations of "being able to do something."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Do you also go around telling children about the logistics of Santa Claus? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Uhm, besides asking you how the undersea-to-surface worlds and their separation aren't partially based on human observations....or challenging your idea of separation in the first place.....it was an opportunity for me to figure out why you've been tagged with solipsistic ideas on the forum from time-to-time. Never mind, that's probably a meta tangent we should avoid at this juncture. :eek: :Noob:
The past is becoming an increasingly poor metric for predicting the future. The world changes faster than ever, not just by generations or decades, but by single years or even months. Many countries have changed their government officials, either through uprisings or elections, since the Great Global Recession and the Arab spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Economies and political policies have been using outdated empirics far too long. They aren't connected to the realities of rapid change, medical or scientific advancements, and human longevity. It's pretty stupid to make 21st century policy based on post-WWII successes.
I'm also not sure why "democratic traditions" and people voting their best-interests doesn't include, to a degree, "others making the decisions for them" via legislation. I suppose some might call that Totalitarianism (or SSSocialism, or tyranny of the majority), and explains why the US is in such a polarized and paralyzed place. Can you expound on that, and what you meant by scapegoating?
That's absurd. Just because we can think of something doesn't mean we can or would do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Furthermore, and correct me if I'm wrong, our odd thread of discussion has revolved around this hypothesis:
The US could or is likely to become totalitarian, nasty large scale war will naturally ensue, the world will be sterilized as a result.
You say there is no theoretical limit to the power of fusion bomb. Ok, leavining aside other limits like cost and engineering, why would a totalitarian state, or any state at all, build a fusion weapon with the power to obliterate the Earth???? The purpose would have to be the extermination of all life. You regard that as even a little plausible?
I'm still completely at a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The separation of deep ocean vent ecosystems from surface ecosystems is a physical fact. They do not depend on the surface for energy or nutrition at all. We could pave over the entire planetary surface, oceans and all, and those communities would thrive as they always have just as if nothing had happened.
I think the solipsism stuff originated with some statements I myself made at one point - jokingly, btw. I've always regarded the followup comments as jokes as well. I mean seriously - if I honestly believed this was all a product of my own mind, I wouldn't bother with it. Would you?
Why don't people read Lem...Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Or, for a more popular culture point, have you not seen Dr. Strangelove?
Kinda pointless. Must not all things at the last be swallowed up in death? It's not like its an event you can really plan for, and in the event of a governmental or societal collapse, is it really anything you'd want to survive? No juice or running water or toilet paper... hardly seems worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Arguably, there's never been a case of a long-standing, prosperous democracy either. Even the US didn't really achieve prosperity until Europe started paying us to help them kill each other en masse. And as pointed out, not only is the sample size incredibly small and over a tiny fraction of human history, but you've also got relatively prosperous democratic countries that have turned away from democracy (like Russia and Venezuela), kind of proving that it can and does happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
All also true of, say the USSR, or other totalitarian regimes that have fallen. The fact that things are working, more or less, at the moment, is no guarantee that will always be the case. If anything, now (in the context of world history) would be the time to bet against our current governments surviving. The pace of change is accelerating exponentially, and our governments are getting slower and slower to react and only making things worse. Honestly hard to see how our governments are going to overcome some of the technological challenges ahead of them, and as is always the case, the smart money is on progress, not progressives. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Dude. I have read Lem, on your recommendation! And I have seen Dr. Strangelove; indeed I named my first dog Stanley after the director!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Things to keep in mind when you choose to inform your world view with this sort of source material:
1. Their works are fictional with the primary intent to entertain and provide a living.
2. To the extent their tales are cautionary, they were expressions of a narrow, unprecedented, extreme and now largely resolved era in human history. Dare I say they are not relevant to the world's new normal?
3. It is important to note the fictional scenarios these stories portrayed never came to pass nor is there any evidence I'm aware of that the character types are realistic. No Dooms Day device was ever built. No automatic nuclear trip-wire was ever constructed. No high ranking military offical ever tried to instigate a nuclear exchange, nor is there evidence a single general could do it unilaterally. And no deterrant eliminating technology was ever developed, nor is there evidence it would be sought and implemented.
4. To cite these materials as evidence to support your fears is equivalent to calling for a halt in computer research and shutting down the internet because of the Terminator 3 story line.
5. And I'm still looking for a non-scifi mechanism a totalitarian America could use to kill all life on Earth. Then we can talk about why that political entity would do such a thing. I'm not aware of any historical precedent . . . .
It is not science fiction to suggest one builds a device on their own soil which'd, to put it in poetic terms, cracks the Earth in half. It'd be feasible, I think. If you gave me a lab and some able people, I think I could do it...
From a strategic point of view, it is the perfect deterrent. You shove me too much, whoops, there goes the whole globe. And once you have it, no one's going to stop you from having one, either...
It takes a certain kind of regime to wield devices like that. It is my (somewhat informed) opinion that the Nazis would have.
And this is just the crudest example. There are others, other wonderful devices I can think of... It doesn't take much doing, but it takes will. The wonderful thing about Nazism was the power of will over matter. It can be done. So many choices...
If you started building something like that, literally everyone in the world would bomb you.
You don't tell them! It's not that hard to keep a secret, either. Plus, there's joint interests; if Berlin wanted one, Helsinki wouldn't be opposed. Moscow would be. Would London? There's all sorts of games...
No, it kinda is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
It isn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Why does this feel like the birth of Nessus the supervillian? One of those, "they said it couldn't be done" 007 movie plots
Certainly the scientific opinion of Little Fuzzy weighs heavier...
I don't think he was remarking on the scientific or technological feasibility so much as on the sort of thing eg. Steely mentioned.
o rlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
bomb.Quote:
Helsinki would
bomb.Quote:
Moscow would
Bomb? Yes.Quote:
Would London?
There is but one game.Quote:
There's all sorts of games...
And there is an argument I couldn't make any more persuasive!
Nesus, no one wants your fucked up doomsday weapon. If anyone builds one, we'll just bomb them till either they stop, or there's no one left to build it.
http://trileafdesigns.com/blog/wp-co...oppinBombs.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-mu6dW4pra...00/bombing.jpe
http://www.oklahomacitybombing.com/o...-bombing-4.jpg
I'm going to have to agree with Steely. Anyone who tried to build such a weapon would be arrested or assassinated. If they managed to get this weapon near working order, they would surely be bombed.