[MG] controversial

[Michal Štěpánek]

Hi,

I hope you do not mind a little bit of controversy. It just came into my
mind.

Imagine that you are planet manager (god) and your asset is a planet like
Earth.
If I imagine a job like that, my first idea when I look at the planet is:
Well, try to lower fertility and increase education with some mild means
and hopefully people will make peace, improve liberty, equality and
relationships.

Now, tell me, why are we not looking for acceptable systems that will lower
fertility and increase education?

What would you do as planet manager?

Cheers
m.

[Scott Raney]

Post by Michal Štěpánek
I hope you do not mind a little bit of controversy. It just came into my
mind.

Hey, better we think of them and design to account for them than to
have a new system fail after deployment....

Post by Michal Štěpánek
Imagine that you are planet manager (god) and your asset is a planet like
Earth.

Let me stop you right there: At least as it's described in the
Matchism manifesto, the managers serve at the discretion of The
People, not by Divine Right. In fact one of the items in my proposal
queue is "Replace Donald Trump with Charlie Baker" (Baker is the
Republican governor of Massachusetts and has maintained the highest
approval ratings among US governors over his two terms, whereas Trump
hasn't broken 50% and is unlikely to ever do that).

Post by Michal Štěpánek
Well, try to lower fertility and increase education with some mild means and
hopefully people will make peace, improve liberty, equality and
relationships.

Whether or not these things are related I think is pretty much
speculation at this point: Certainly the countries with the lowest
birth rates *aren't* doing the best overall. Japan, for example, is a
financial disaster exactly because they haven't balanced costs
associated with caring for (or at least appeasing) seniors with the
needs of younger people. IMHO the primary need to reduce the
population stems almost exclusively from the need to protect the
environment (which wasn't on your list).

Post by Michal Štěpánek
Now, tell me, why are we not looking for acceptable systems that will lower
fertility and increase education?

We have these already. The problem is that The People, who could (and
I believe would) push for greater adoption of these things if they
were forced to make the decisions themselves, have never been given
the opportunity to do so. Instead you've got SDAPs deciding to spend
the money on "national defense" and other programs designed to enrich
their cronies than on free birth control or a total redesign of our
educational systems.

Post by Michal Štěpánek
What would you do as planet manager?

The correct answer here is "Implement The Will of The People" ;-)
Regards,
Scott

Post by Michal Štěpánek
Cheers
m.

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metag

[Michal Štěpánek]

Post by Scott Raney

Post by Michal Štěpánek
Well, try to lower fertility and increase education with some mild means

and

Post by Michal Štěpánek
hopefully people will make peace, improve liberty, equality and
relationships.

Whether or not these things are related I think is pretty much

Sure it is speculation. The example is simple mind-body distinction.
Fertility-body, education-mind.

Post by Scott Raney
Certainly the countries with the lowest
birth rates *aren't* doing the best overall. Japan, for example, is a
financial disaster exactly because they haven't balanced costs
associated with caring for (or at least appeasing) seniors with the
needs of younger people. IMHO the primary need to reduce the
population stems almost exclusively from the need to protect the
environment (which wasn't on your list).

You are right, my point was environmental. Ecosystem (at certain
technological level) may carry just a limited population.
National accouts and solidarity of generations are less important than
ecological laws.
But here we are very close to discussion that is unbearable to most of
population and I do not think that they will be able to have reasonable
discussion about health cost, life and death any time soon. I believe that
they will preffer an authorian or psychopath to decide instead of them.
What do you think? Are they able to decide when to leave people to die?

Cheers
m.

[Jacopo Tolja]

Just make human much much much more intelligent and more willing to use
their brain! Or remove them from the picture.
The second is a little radical but the first is really what we need. I
encounter too much superficiality around me and is not about education, is
about mind laziness, I know educated people that do not want to think.
In Italy we use to say, NEEDS SHARPEN THE BRAIN and is another factor that
actual God place in our survival instinct.
Unfortunately our live is too short to remember past mistakes in history,
even the one that happen during our passage on earth so we are always on
the emergency stage of problem solving.
Anyway there is a simple rule that will solve all issues... Love your
neighbor as yourself
Peace Jacopo

Post by Michal Štěpánek

Post by Michal Štěpánek

Post by Michal Štěpánek
If I imagine a job like that, my first idea when I look at the planet
Well, try to lower fertility and increase education with some mild

means and

Post by Michal Štěpánek
hopefully people will make peace, improve liberty, equality and
relationships.

Whether or not these things are related I think is pretty much

Sure it is speculation. The example is simple mind-body distinction.
Fertility-body, education-mind.

Post by Michal Štěpánek
Certainly the countries with the lowest
birth rates *aren't* doing the best overall. Japan, for example, is a
financial disaster exactly because they haven't balanced costs
associated with caring for (or at least appeasing) seniors with the
needs of younger people. IMHO the primary need to reduce the
population stems almost exclusively from the need to protect the
environment (which wasn't on your list).

You are right, my point was environmental. Ecosystem (at certain
technological level) may carry just a limited population.
National accouts and solidarity of generations are less important than
ecological laws.
But here we are very close to discussion that is unbearable to most of
population and I do not think that they will be able to have reasonable
discussion about health cost, life and death any time soon. I believe that
they will preffer an authorian or psychopath to decide instead of them.
What do you think? Are they able to decide when to leave people to die?
Cheers
m.
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_
metagovernment.org

[Michal Štěpánek]

Post by Jacopo Tolja
Just make human much much much more intelligent and more willing to use
their brain! Or remove them from the picture.

The second is a little radical but the first is really what we need.
Yes, people may be poor decision makers in some problematiques, but better
at others. It may be worth spliting the problematiques and designing system
for every problematique separately.
I did that in "Prediction of goodness" but now I see that sometimes
reported goodness is a bad tool, because it is biased by religions or
drives. So I went for some objective indicators (fertility,..).

(snip)

Cheers
m.

[max stalnaker]

Is jacopo the Pareto person? Pareto seems to be important, but rarely
spoken of, over here in our current political dramas. I ask since he seems
a bit inclined to some modern version of eugenics. Pareto is somehow
someone I find myself thinking about every now and again.

Post by Jacopo Tolja

Post by Jacopo Tolja
Just make human much much much more intelligent and more willing to use
their brain! Or remove them from the picture.

The second is a little radical but the first is really what we need.
Yes, people may be poor decision makers in some problematiques, but better
at others. It may be worth spliting the problematiques and designing system
for every problematique separately.
I did that in "Prediction of goodness" but now I see that sometimes
reported goodness is a bad tool, because it is biased by religions or
drives. So I went for some objective indicators (fertility,..).
(snip)
Cheers
m.
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_
metagovernment.org

[Anthony Dunn]

Here's a controversial idea: What if the only thing keeping populations
from employing population control, and better means of education, was their
ruling classes and all we actually need to do is get the fuck out of their
way!?!

Besides, whatever we decide for them will just be as truly worthless as
what others try to decide for us. If we want them to do something we need
to effectively argue WHY they should.

In other words: either we build a meritocracy and help good ideas
proliferate
Or we're just a bunch of clowns with opinions.

I think if we were half as smart as we think we are we'd figure out which
1-3 projects deserve the most support, then stand by them. But we're not
learning from our mistakes or supporting each other or anything. Sometimes
I wonder if humanity just plain deserves what's coming, but then I think of
the kids and wish we could just get our shit together for them, if nothing
else.

Post by max stalnaker
Is jacopo the Pareto person? Pareto seems to be important, but rarely
spoken of, over here in our current political dramas. I ask since he seems
a bit inclined to some modern version of eugenics. Pareto is somehow
someone I find myself thinking about every now and again.

Post by Jacopo Tolja

Post by Jacopo Tolja
Just make human much much much more intelligent and more willing to use
their brain! Or remove them from the picture.

The second is a little radical but the first is really what we need.
Yes, people may be poor decision makers in some problematiques, but
better at others. It may be worth spliting the problematiques and designing
system for every problematique separately.
I did that in "Prediction of goodness" but now I see that sometimes
reported goodness is a bad tool, because it is biased by religions or
drives. So I went for some objective indicators (fertility,..).
(snip)
Cheers
m.
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_
metagovernment.org