The New Government

What if we replaced all the greedy politicians with something less human, like a computer program.

The program scans the internet basing its legislation on how people really feel.

This idea you have would be very dangerous for the human race. I would never let any machine control and dominate me. Machine must serve man, not the other way around. We can use machines to make our lives easier but to let a computer program run our lives, never!

PEACE

it doesn't control anything, the government is here to serve the people, the people vote and control their own fate.

The only difference between a program and politician is that a program cannot be manipulated indirectly.

Agreed. It's already bad enough trying to negotiate those automated check-out lines at the market. I had a loaf of bread from the bakery and the doggone machine said the weight was wrong for the item scanned. So, I went to the bakery and told them they were trying to sell me a deffective loaf and that I wanted another.

The manager took my goods to a previously closed, human operated register and checked me out without further ado.

I really do hate computers. Even my own. There's too much Big Brother in them anymore.

I thought about this before when they were discussing judges.

The reason this can't work is because of circumstances. A computer can not understand circumstances yet. Nuances and certain factors that are readily understood by a human are not so easy for a computer.

This is why we have human judges and not computer ones.

I think the concept translates over to a government computer just as easily.

Another thing to consider here is the zeroth law, a logical but incorrect step in the concept of protection. If a computer was powerful enough to actually govern us, it would eventually reach the conclusion that we can not make our own decisions. We make bad decisions a lot, we are risky, we push boundaries, and sometimes we fail, and sometimes we succeed, we are human. These things define us, a computer designed to protect our welfare could not allow that.

while I understand what you are suggesting and in theory agree,I to think it would be a bad Idea.I'm assuming what you don't like is the gov. taking over your life and taking your money.Why then would it be better if it was a computer?What we need are watchdogs who are not complicit in gov. corruption to monitor the people we put into office to insure our will is done and not the special interest's .

are you kidding me??? i don't consider myself to be a great thinker, but there are ALOT of whacked out people online, who i wouldn't trust mowing my lawn, let alone deciding on legislation. and what?...everybody that does not have a computer does not have a say in this?? your leaving out about 70 to 75% of the worlds population.

Because I trust a computer more than a person, a computer is not competing with myself for survival.

reply to post by raj9721

---

The cold logic of a computer would betray the concepts of humanitarian rule. Without a conscience a computer could make decisions that we would be appalled at.

You're talking about being ruled by a sociopath.



[edit on 6-11-2009 by Seiko]

Ohh man this is a bad idea.....I can see it now, the "computer" figures that the US has to many people so it decides that we need to get rid of Florida for example. The computer launches a bomb and BOOM, no more Florida.

This has disaster written (in binary mind you) all over it.

A machine shouldn't speak for mankind, but i do find the idea of a machine being more capable of being able to tell how humans really feel more than a human quite intriguing. tell me more...