ALine

Please tell me a new cup is created and not passed down. Please tell me this, I need to be deluded in this case. Please tell me it is also metal and not plastic.

Do they ever drink liquids from that cup? I bet someone somewhere has won a trophy like this just to pour wine into it and drink it with a grin of accomplishment.

I would not call it a balance, more like an equilibrium state of multiple forces but yeah make sense.

What eternal battle? Religion does not simply comply with just Christian interpretations. There are multiple different religions spanning throughout the entirety of human existence. Christianity is fairly recent in terms of religious history. Like greek and Roman mythologies existed both it and so did Aztec and other religions. All of them, however, have a unique interpretation on how the world began and how it would end. Just saying that it is based upon a single God and a single Devil along with a Jesus fellow would have me assume that you are referring to a singular interpretation of the overall understanding of what religion is.

I mean is there a rational explanation for the basis of religion? I mean I personally do not understand it.

Have you ever heard of Negative Temperature? That is a weird new one. It states that at near 0 Kelvin the closer and closer you get you may jump back up to infinite temperature. Like an infinite loop going from high temp to low temp and back to high temp. So in essence maybe one day when the universe has experienced full heat death then it will somehow gain an infinite amount of energy and will basically reset itself. Here is a Wikipedia article about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

Just wanted to create a new thread to stop posting in a dedicated UBI thread. Sorry about that again by the way.

Did you not watch the videos? It explains that innovation does lead to new jobs but more jobs are being created and being taken by automation faster than anyone can come up with new innovations to prevent this from happening. My job is to create new inventions and innovations and I am saying that I cannot even keep up. Once I come up with a new idea I think, " Hey you know what would be nice? Making this automated so I will not have to worry about paying anyone else to do this job for me." And I automate it and it is done. I do not think about trying to involve humans because they are slow, inefficient and cost too much. One of my videos shows an example of this happening. I would suggest watching it, it is a good watch. Also sorry, did it again. I will not respond anymore and will create a new thread.

But no, let's be honest here Bender. 1. Thinking for one's self and rationalizing everything around them is no "indoctrination." Based upon your given definition then that would mean that all of science is just a form of religion that has no basis or meaning in reality. So why even come here to talk about science or logical debate or rationality if you are going to say that the same rationality you are using is irrational. 2. Ok, so I am assuming that you are a perfectly rational person who may or may not have a child. What would you do if you have passed the rationality examination, which based upon your responses you would have most likely have done so? I am assuming that you would leave your kid outside of a new world just because he did not want to? NO, He is a child, not an adult. He cannot make fully rationalized decisions yet. If he is a rebellious child then treat him as a rebellious child and tell him to "come on." (3) The percentage of the human population which is a sociopath is literally so small, around 3% and 1% for psychopaths, I am pretty sure we will not see one anytime soon. And when we do see one then our technology would be so advanced then it would be able to detect one. And if it cannot then we will focus our research on detecting them. Also because data is constantly being obtained how would they be able to kill anyone? If they ever come outside with a gun and are headed to an apartment or residential area, by the way, it would not really matter because we could just stop the gun from firing, then we would know when he was coming and just divert him from trying to kill someone. Also if a child rebels then let a child rebel, he will just need to wait until he gets old enough to make a change to the system. Why are we automatically assuming that freedom of speech is instantly out the window? Naw man, all he would have to do is simply wait for when he is an adult and if he still finds problems all he would need to do is rationalize what is wrong with the system, and yes emotions and morality would be taken into account; this system is built on the very foundations of morality. If a large number of people agree with him then it gets added or removed from the rules and regulations. If someone who is old has a problem then they can make an argument against it. The system is designed so that EVERYONE has the potential and actual ability to change rules and regulations at any time no matter who they are. That process just takes a very long time because it is designed to make everyone THINK together as a collective versus everything thinking by themselves. Also, no one would have access to your personal data except for you. So if you have sex with someone and someone else is trying to look at you have sex with someone else then that person watching is in the wrong, unless he receives permission to do so. Nope, better there than here where you can get your life ruined by looking at a woman the wrong way or can die of literal starvation while people walk past you like it is nothing. Or you can get raped in jails by people twice your size for no reason other than saying something impolitely. I mean come on, I would rather spend my time doing what it was that I wanted to do while being watched vs Being constantly in fear of everything around me while not being watched. I would want to know that my child was safe going to and from school without having to worry about some rapist trying to pick them up. I would want to leave my door unlocked at night without having to worry about being robbed. Why live in a system that if you stop working for only a single day you could possibly die. Sure everyone has a different story, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of the world would agree with me. Yep, you are right but why not start training them at birth to think for themselves that it is not ok to kill someone and to treat everyone with respect. Why let it get to that point where they already are in prisons. Besides that is not going to solve the problem. In prison's, you are combining people who are not normal and would murder people vs. people who are normal and would not kill anyone. What do you think is going to happen if there are "weak" people vs "strong" people? The weak ones are going to get raped, killed, murdered and made an example of. So the only thing the weak people can do is to become strong. So they become strong, but because they have been like that for such a long time then it does not matter once they get out because you have just created a murderer. In your quest to become such a "free" society you have stripped away what it means to be free. No amount of training will change and or fix that and just say that it will is just purely irrational, to say the least. This is simply because it would not be grounded in reality. This entire society is simply asking the question, " would you kill your own family" would you rape your own family member? Everyone in this society would be considered a family would try to rationalize and reason everything in order to prevent conflict.

Yes and this is addressed below. I should have gone into more depth for this analysis; however, I was under the assumption that it was known that automation is more cost effective vs. human labor because it would be just the cost of electricity vs. humans minimum wage costs. This is what was implied when I stated that, " but because automation would be very prevalent then they would not have anywhere to work." This is not because they "do not want" to work, whereas they "cannot" work. Yes, this is true, however, if new jobs are created and they can be automated then it would not matter. Once a new job is created then someone can just automate it before any human would even be aware of it existing. Every job no matter complex a machine can do it better, faster and more efficient. This is because every super complex job is a combination of smaller and more specialized jobs. All you need is an engineer who is smart enough to figure out how it works. This is why I made the statement that engineers are going to be more and more prevalent and will be in much higher demand over time. An example of this is that something like even law is currently is replaced by virtual judges and lawyers. Citation: Teaching: And this was back in 2009, ( And even though this technology is specifically designed for teaching student another person can see it as a proof of concept and then use it themselves to teach students. ) A video explaining it Here is another video Here is a list of the growth in the engineering field https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm The above states that Software engineering fields are expected to rise by 24 percent between 2016 and 2026 Compare this to other Fields like mechanical or biomedical engineering which will only increase either 7-9 percent in relatively the same amount of time. Mechanical Engineering: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/mechanical-engineers.htm Bio-mechanical Engineering: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/biomedical-engineers.htm http://fortune.com/2017/02/22/startups-2017-challenger/ The above talks about how the number of entrepreneurs has increased from 4 percent to around 9 percent and this number may only increase due to more competition in the market for bringing new entrepreneurs into the economic system. So there appears to be a correlation between the increasing number of entrepreneurs and the increasing number of software engineering. As the demand for taking new entrepreneurs go up then the demand for the number of software engineers may go up as well. So because of all the other fields being taken up by automation the only job that will most likely be left would be software engineering. Everyone that does not have a job, the working class, would be funneled into this field. This will inevitably drastically increase software production and innovation. If this increases at an increasing rate then eventually someone will create a piece of software which can write software. If this happens then everyone will be pushed into the entrepreneurial fields. If someone losses their money then they can just become an entrepreneur again and use the services to get back to where they were. In essence, you do not really need a UBI because it will get to the point that there are enough software and other services from other entrepreneurs to just get to a high-class position. I can keep searching youtube and the internet and the story is the same. Any job can be and will be replaced, no matter how new or old it is. I will create a new thread so that I do not move this thread off track, sorry about that.

If this were true then why is it that we have research institutions or a legal system? A purposeful human action is dependent upon the morals and thoughts of individuals within a society. So if there were no incentive toward intelligence gaining or moral laws then we would not have them. We probably would not have gotten to where we are now if it were not for purposeful human action for these specific fields.

Would not UBI give individuals less incentive for working thus causing companies to invest more heavily in automation? Thus decreasing the number of workers who are actually trying to find jobs. So after a period of time, the UBI would remain the same, the individuals who are out of work would increase as automation increased. All of this while the population would be growing due to an increase in health services due to anyone being able to have access to health tips and medication, assuming UBI would be able to handle the price difference. The increase in population would in turn decrease in worth due to a drastic increase in population. So, in turn, the UBI would need to be increased. I guess you could say that automation would help with teaching, but as because automation would be very prevalent then they would not have anywhere to work. So they would, in turn, start small businesses using automated methods. This would create an even higher demand for automation so it would become cheaper and cheaper until it is almost, if not free. So now everyone is either an entrepreneur or an engineer. This may continue until engineers develop an automated process that fully replaces them. After this, all that will be left to do is become an entrepreneur. But now the question becomes "who do I sell to and what do I sell?" So at this point, because everyone is an entrepreneur people will compete to see who can be the most creative and most innovative. Producing new fields and new technologies at a faster and faster rate. This will continue until the engineering automated software that the previous engineers have built will design an automated entrepreneur because one entrepreneur will decide that he does not want to work as hard as the other entrepreneurs in order to increase their time and energy into something else. After this everyone would follow his lead until it will get to the point where no one is working and everything is done by automated processes. Once this happens no one will need to really need to do anything else they want. Everything is automated so no one will need to really do anything except learning and create, although everything that they have ever learned and created would have already been done by the automated systems. So it would essentially be like humanity would be in it "retirement stages" where it could do whatever it wanted. Because humans would live a lot longer there which a less and less incentive to have more children until we would eventually stop. After a large amount of time, we would slowly and steadily reduce the human population more and more, similar to being treated in a nursing home waiting to die. After the last few humans are left they will look at everything that they have accomplished and will smile and say " This is nice." After which the automated systems will lay humanity down one last time until the last human dies. Then because the automated system would have nothing to really do would simply either shut down to maintain resources or will continue do what was programmed to do, most likely the first option because everything is dedicated to human longevity. In a world which spent a large majority of its time dedicated to advancing forward, it would be oblivious to the fact that it is simply running faster and faster to a nice long deserving rest. The world would slowly be taken back by nature and it would be like humanity was simply a very slight blip in the universe.

I believe that because this is only a philosophical analysis then bringing in UBI in this would defeat the purpose of this only being hypothetical. UBI would be a concrete idea which may or may not work; however, if you utilize such a concrete idea into a hypothetical idea which fluidly grows then you would be constricting the idea into a definable "has to be like this." I do not have a problem with UBI, but I feel that it in itself should be questioned in order to add to a philosophical discussion such as this.

Yes, and I believe that I have addressed this issue, that being the separation of families as you can see below. Families would be allowed to stay together. This is due to the adults having an influence on the children. So if the adults pass the test then their children can go as well. It is an all or nothing deal.

Please clarify what you mean by untenable?

The idea is that in order for a new rule or regulation to be added to the main constitution then everyone needs to be in agreement for it. This is the reason for all of the examinations beforehand. Because you would want only individuals who are swayed by only rational empirical evidence instead of personal belief systems which are not based in reality to vote in order to make a society that they all would adhere to. Also, this process would take a long time yes, however it is not simply about voting "yes or no" on an idea. It is about making the idea available, having everyone come up with there own rationalities for why something should go through and then decide on there own to determine if it is in the best interest for the society. They also have to rationalize there vote onto why they made it so that everything is based upon reality and facts. So for example, if you were apart of this society and someone posed the idea to "kill everyone and end everything in a fiery hailstorm of fire and brimstone." You would want to know that your singular voice out of the masses is being considered and if you decide "hey I do not like that idea, let me pose a different solution" then you can. The system is designed to make you as an individual of that society less lazy or dependent upon others for making decisions for you. Also the longer the society goes the more streamlined the process will become so, in the beginning, it would take say a 4-5 year to make a single vote, it will take 4-5 minutes for future generations. What is the rush to make changes to the constitution? If the basic rules are extremely grounded in reality and every idea no matter who it comes from is continuously tested into the ring then it would be equivalent to someone creating a scientific paper and having peer-reviewed by everyone in the society. It would not be good if something that is not proven by experimentation to be accepted as being absolute truth. This gives everyone a voice and gives everyone a chance to challenge it. Also, what do you mean by "going through" iNow?

Everyone has a singular vote and for anything to pass through to become a rule or regulation everyone has to confirm or deny or create a new idea. So if the entire population of 1 billion votes yes and one person votes no or posses a secondary idea then the vote will not go through.

Thank you for the response YaDinghus, This society would be designed so that the individual right of a person of this society would be preserved. The only difference is that they are taught from a very young age to think critically, think creatively, share openly, and to have respect for all other individuals of the society. The society would only be teaching them to "do whatever you want as long as you do not go against the liberties of other individuals within that society." It would be like a child who is free to do whatever they wanted, be it becoming an artist or an inventor or anything that there heart desires. But the only rules are that you must respect the decisions and ideas of others and you must respect the ideas and decisions of yourself. No ideas would be forced for these children to have whereas they are taught to freely question and imagine anything that they wish to imagine and create. So if a child grows up to have a want to harm another individual and another individual obligates that request then the child is free to harm the other individual for respect for both his wishes and the wishes of the other individual. This would occur, however after the individual has sought or obtained all of the medical and psychological attention that has been made available to him at the time. So if he is still suicidal after every attempt has been made to help him with his life and nothing is working then the other individual has the option of terminating this individuals life. However, if the man who wishes to harm other individuals and does so without there consent or knowledge out of rage or emotional distress then he would not be allowed within the society. He can only do it with the full consent of another individual. He cannot bribe them, or try to persuade them, or create propaganda to attempt to change the minds of individuals who do not want to commit suicide. This would be going again the respect of others. Also this "morality examination" would be used to prevent individuals from outside of the society from coming into the society in order to try and cause them to prevent the society from being free. So say if someone where to come into this society without any means of determining if he will kill everyone within that society and he just wants to kill everyone and he cannot be dis-swayed to do so because of his previous religious beliefs then he would simply just get resources, make guns, and will proceed to murder everyone within the society without upholding the respect of the individuals within that society. If you are an adult and you have children who want to become apart of this society and you are swayed by rational argument then the most likely outcome is that your children would listen to you as a role model or hero figure and you would have taught them to also think rationally based upon empirical evidence. I am sorry for not clarifying this earlier. I am making this up as I go along. So both the adults and children would be allowed within the society. The parents would just need to know that they would be entering a new society where they are free to pursue anything that they wish to pursue as long as it does not go again the rights of another individual and a child who enters this society will be given all the means of growing up within the society in order to determine what problems they were dealing with in the past in order to help them through there problems. It would be a package deal with your immediate family. As long as the adults or inspirers within that family have proven that they can be swayed by rational argument then everyone of that family is welcome in. However this would mean that the adults would need to be able to be swayed by questioning everything that they ones believed because this would be a society who questions everything and nothing would be concrete except the building blocks of knowledge, creativity, and imagination that they would create. And even then those building blocks would be challenged constantly.

Yes, you are correct; each one of these societies creates certain "qualification exams" in order to allow for individuals to be allowed into the society that they are apart of. There would be no different from what those societies would be like vs my proposed idea of a utopia at first glance. Oppression is the result of individuals not having there wants and needs to be met along with there own personal opinions an judgments heard. But what if you kept everyone informed on what they society as a who is doing, raise individuals to only listen to empirically rational arguments that are only based upon reality, Raise them to also believe that everything should be questioned no matter what it is or where it comes from, and that everyone should be respected no matter who they are with the utmost care? You would most likely create a society who is extremely well informed about everything, have heightened critical thinking abilities, and will know how to determine if someone is trying to come into power or gain power from someone else. Everyone in that society would be so intelligent that no one would be able to manipulate their behaviors or try to change there mind with propaganda. The only thing that could sway them would be arguments based in reality. This would not be a test to maintain purity, or loyalty, or religious belief. It is a test to see if you would harm another individual or if you would kill someone else, or even if you would rape someone else. It is not about creating a test would look for certain ideas which would eventually cause the society to think like one person; it is about finding individuals who question everything including themselves to determine if there ideas or ideologies are flawed. The individuals of this society must be as informed and as knowledgeable about their world around them as possible in order for a system like this to work. Also, the morality exam would not be based on future actions that "may" occur because anything can happen. But what has already occurred and their ability to be swayed by logic and reason which is grounded in reality. Also the "morality exam" would know if someone if a psychopath or a sociopath due to the complexity of the "morality exam." So it would know if someone was lying to 100 percent accuracy. This can be presumed due to the increasing intelligence of the general populous within the society.

The basis for this idea " an evidence-based society" is rooted in the argument or claim that " An evidence-based society can work if individuals are raised to think critically and rationally about there environment." This would be the starting point for the society so if a new society of humans were born tomorrow in this society then they would grow up and develop into "empirically rational minded, meaning that they are taught to thought based upon the morals depicted to them which would allow for them to do whatever they wanted without harming anyone else. At this stage in hypotheticals, the best evidence that I can give for such a society to work would be that of a company like a google except instead of making people work they would instead be able to relax, do whatever they wanted and to eat and sleep whenever they wanted. However, if you have anyone who would eat or sleep work for you that always slept and always did not work then they would be detrimental to the society. Also, there will be others who would want to work there but there is a position being taken up by someone who does not care to work there but is getting paid a lot so they stay there. By letting those members of your family inside of the society you could risk having those individuals who would otherwise fail the "morality exam" kill anyone and everyone. Just because they are your family does not mean that they will not want to harm others. You might believe that they are nice, kind and innocent however they may be someone who would kill others when they are sleeping. Your family would be protected but other families in this society would not be. The morality exam would be created by everyone within that society so that those entering that society would know who they would like to let in to become apart of that society. It would be unwise to let someone in who would simply start collecting resources in order to eventually cause mass hysteria and rioting and murder. Please note that the morality exam would not be a static examination. Calling it an exam is like calling bread a "meat carrier." It would be constantly changing in order to fit the needs of the individuals of this society so that they would select who would be apart of this society. There is no one person who decides whether or not people are allowed in or not.

When I say "rational" I am wondering if there is a positive argument which can be made for religion to be kept within our world as a whole.

I would like to know the reasonable arguments for having a religion. The only one that I can think of is that religion causes a "faith/belief" tether to a certain true world understanding which attaches itself to certain ideals in order to reach this true world which is passed down through the ages. These ideals can be anything from basic rules and regulations which prevent others from performing certain actions on how to love your loved ones. However, if this is true then that would mean that religion would act as a "time capsule" which would have people to believe one thing while also maintaining the ideas and beliefs of certain rules and regulations.

The idea for this is to create a hypothetical philosophical utopia which does not and possibly will not exist. I am going off of general presumptions to attempt to build up and create a new society based upon ideas that I am producing. I do not have any evidence for such a society to exist because a society like this has never existed. I am defining "data" as being information gathered and obtained as an individual is within the society. Data such as health and fitness. If say someone were to be having a heart attack the automated system running the society would see this and would be there within seconds to help. This data or information would be collected over the period of time you would be apart of the society. Ok, I see what you are saying if both you and your nephew take the test at the same time and only you pass the test but not your nephew then you are worried about a separation between your loved ones. The test can be taken at any time for as many times as you want. So if you were to pass the test but not your nephew was not then your nephew can take it as many times as he wants. Also, it would not be a written test, but instead a test which over a period of time would determine your morality with respect to societies morals. Eventually, it would be so advanced and well tuned that it would be able to determine if you would either mane or harm another individual the system would fully know. So if your nephew were a person who would harm another individual, I am not saying that he is, then yeah he would not be apart of the society. Also, those who want to take the test would be treated with the utmost respect and they would be provided for fully having all there wants and needs to be met until they would eventually pass the test. The test would also be designed for fully planning out all possible instances and situations that an individual would get into based upon the individuals currently present in the society. The system would plan for how they would interact or act in the society with respect to where they should live, who they would meet, etc. You do not want people who would endanger the lives of those within the society to be apart of the society. There would be first a virtual integration and then a physical integration. And after a long period of time, those who continue trying to take the test would have in essence passed the test because they have shown a very large willingness to stay and learn the information. However, they still will need to have passed the examination. Think of the exam not as a "sit at a desk and use a number 2 pencil" but as a creative and intelligence exercise to determine how you are swayed by rationality and reason based upon your actions. So waiting to take the exam is apart of the exam.