We bicker over meaningless topics and have fallen victim to the silent weapons of segregation

a reply to: Astyanax

I see it as a matter of system efficiency, rather than "problematic."

I see no need for you to go into further specifics. I think you elaborated your perspective quite well. We pretty much agree, if we are only using variables currently in play.

That's kind of how I take the thread; we need to have new conversations if we wish to introduce new variables. Then, perhaps, "old" words can be born anew in each and every perspective.

a reply to: Serdgiam

We need to have new conversations if we wish to introduce new variables.

Now here's the thing. Politically, I'm kind of a radical moderate. But I'm conservative about this as a general rule, as was Edmund Burke, the first man to articulate conservatism as a recognizable political philosophy.

I think we should be wary of 'introducing new variables', because the consequences of them are seldom fully foreseen. Often there may be unpleasant surprises in store. Even when there are not, we often see the new variables we introduce change our world in radical, unforeseen ways. Look at mobile telephony, and now smartphones — did anyone predict the different ways in which they would come to be used, or how dependent we would grow on them?

Change has to happen. It's inevitable. And most of the time we can't foresee the future. But I would rather we steered our societies — and the planet — with a lighter touch than we do now. I also worry that this is impossible. Time will tell.

originally posted by: Astyanax
I think we should be wary of 'introducing new variables', because the consequences of them are seldom fully foreseen. Often there may be unpleasant surprises in store. Even when there are not, we often see the new variables we introduce change our world in radical, unforeseen ways. Look at mobile telephony, and now smartphones — did anyone predict the different ways in which they would come to be used, or how dependent we would grow on them?

I enjoy your thoughts on this. Heck, even well established paradigms seem to be used with reckless abandon (part of your point, to be fair).

I think though, that it is easy to see more of a threat in the new and the unknown, regardless of validity. Perhaps just a part of human nature?

I like the idea of decentralized testing centers, in real world conditions. It's actually exactly what I am working on, and failure is expected. However, such failures can be used to refine the methodologies, especially when they are openly shared and feedback is welcomed/encouraged (the procedural foundation is the scientific method).

Change has to happen. It's inevitable. And most of the time we can't foresee the future. But I would rather we steered our societies — and the planet — with a lighter touch than we do now. I also worry that this is impossible. Time will tell.

I truly feel the key lies in proper incentives. We currently employ social systems that encouraging hoarding, with success being measured by ones aptitude in "taking." One of the main issues I see with this, in its modern incarnation, is that there is little (if any) connection to a real world value.

Anyway, trying to stay on topic, I think we should focus on how things change and our impact in that process (my own made up ideology of Morphologian; specifically lacking a term for a group). In this way, systems are designed to change WITH time, rather than ones that are designed to be absolute or exclusive. To my knowledge, such an attempt has yet to be made on any level, but it is my own personal guideline.

Testing is to start shortly.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I think though, that it is easy to see more of a threat in the new and the unknown, regardless of validity. Perhaps just a part of human nature?

Yes, and for very good reason. However, it is balanced by our curiosity and hunger for novelty, which are also powerful, and just as essential for our continued survival as fear of change. It's all about the balance.

I truly feel the key lies in proper incentives.

Perhaps; but that is a second step, after having made the decision that change in a particular direction is desirable.

a reply to: Astyanax

It's amazing how much things really are about balance, isn't it? I prefer balance derived from four directions rather than two.

The idea is that neither the pertinent end values nor the variables to achieve them have ever been properly examined. We know, extraordinarily well I might add, exactly what oligarchies bring us (regardless of what the specific governing body called itself). Perhaps rule by a small few IS the most effective structure, perhaps not. But, I do have my doubts that how systems are currently incentivized effectively support change.

a reply to: Serdgiam

What system of government is most appropriate to a given society depends on the prevailing conditions. I think we're due for a shakeup soon -- all of us.

a reply to: Astyanax

I agree, how it will actually manifest remains to be seen.. but strong indicators are there.

I've got an interesting question for ya..

Do you feel all viable systems of government have been thought of and explored? What about economic systems?

It could be considered off topic, but we are exercising the premise of the OP. Two people of relatively different persuasions having a productive conversation and all!

a reply to: Astyanax

I thoroughly applaud and enjoy what you stated in the beginning. So many people blame media when everyday we (society) are the ones who watch it. We all talk about how we want the Kardashians and "reality TV" to get off the air. Then we turn and say "that darn media! It's their fault!." Yet WE are the consumers. If you think about it, everything in media is a test at first. Simply speaking, pilots and pilots for a reason. Think Seinfeld. They had a pilot on an unknown idea and it was a smash. Then they played it out successfully. Meanwhile, reality TV, back in its early testing, became a smash because it was new and people liked it. Now it has taken over every inch of the dial. The three channels I loved to watch all day were TLC, Science Channel, and The History Channel...sometimes Animal Planet. They don't even hide it anymore...it's all scripted, faux-reality TV and the reason it works is because we gobble it up.

OP...awesome thread.

I wish we were at some point where we could just be done with the conversation. I wish we were at the point where our biggest quarrel was which chicken joint was the best (it's KFC by the way). Problem is people just have to quarrel and can't let others be. My own side included. I see all the hell that atheists or LGBT, or any minority group has received and I am trying to be more open about my own biases but plenty of folks on my side of the table has been just as vile with their words at times.

I would love this to happen though.