Your idea of a perfect humanity

[Ice Demon]

Mokele:

When was the last time Taoism or Buddhism caused a war?

 

 

Most eastern religions aren't so much religions as they are ways of life.

 

 

Furthermore, your information is wrong; while religion has *sometimes* held back science, it has also sometimes greatly aided it. In fact, in Islam, studying mathematics, astronomy and such are explicitly listed as works for the glory of God.

 

 

If it weren't for the Catholic Church pushing astronomy back almost 1000 years, Islam would have had almost no astronomy to study, as they would have soon reached the limit of what you can learn about astronomy without having a telescope.

Not to mention that the theory of creationism, which most western religions are based around, conflicts with evolution. And evolution has been as good as proved by science.

 

 

On top of that, you assume that what is new is automatically good and progress should never be held back, which is logically fallacious.

 

 

Then why don't you try providing some examples of that?

 

 

A world without love? or kindness? Or honesty? Remember, honesty is a moral too. Not to mention things like not murdering random people for the sheer fun of it.

 

 

Yes, but things like honesty would still exist, and people wouldn't be allowed to just kill each other. They would be a matter of efficiency rather than morals. Obviously murdering random people is detrimental to the efficiency of humanity as a whole, so it would not be tolerated.

 

 

Without emotion, life is an empty waste devoid of anything but mechanistic productivity. Without morals and ethics, life would be a nightmare in which the strong hold total control over the weak with no restraint or mercy.

 

 

But with the caste system I explained, there would be almost no difference between the strong and the weak, everyone would be as good as equal.

 

 

Also, remember that wonder is an emotion, and without the capacity to look at the night sky or a coral reef and marvel at it's beauty, science is effectively dead. In fact, one could even consider curiousity, and even more vital component of science, to be an emotion.

 

 

But even without emotion, we would still have instinct and intelligence. Our natural instincts tell us to do what is necessary to survive, and our intelligence drives that instinct further, making us look for ways to survive better or more conveniently, and ways to survive longer. In that way, science would continue to move on.

 

 

And if that government goes bad, there's no escape.

 

 

So you'd rather have warfare between governments?

 

 

 

And what of things that are wanted, but not needed? And things of which there simply isn't enough to go around?

 

 

For your first question, I assume you are referring to entertainment and such. But without the emotion of fun and enjoyment, there simply wouldn't be any need for it. And where there isn't enough of something to go around, at least it would be as evenly spread as possible. Situations that can happen today where 90% of a given necessity goes to the most powerful 10% of the people would be avoided.

 

 

There's skill and there's passion. I am a highly skilled engineer, but I lack any passion for it at all, thus I moved to physics. Just because someone is *good* at something doesn't mean it's what they want to do.

 

 

People want to do certain jobs because they bring them joy and happiness. Without emotion, that is obviously not an issue. So it's the greatest benefit to the whole that a person does what they are most skilled at, and can thus make the greatest possible contribution.

 

 

Why? What's so hot about efficiency? Why not strive for happiness or something else?

 

 

 

What does one person being happy do to help the greater body of humanity?

 

 

We're not gears in a machine; we're a horde of squabbling monkeys. The only way to change that is to grow your gear-people in a lab, specially engineered to spec.

 

 

And who's to say that won't be possible in time?

 

And also, ideas can be forced onto unwilling people, so they eventually believe them. Just look at the growth of Christianity.

 

 

Yes, because Nash, Hawking, Hooke and others who have had various mental or physical infirmities have never contributed anything.

 

 

That's right, they did nothing someone else couldn't have done.

 

-Demosthenes-:

This is a curious subject. Ice demons definition seems to be meant to make to greatest amount of peace and the least amount of conflict. But this seems, at further study, extremely dissatisfying when you take into account the absence of emotion and human differences. Why do anything?

 

It seems you perfect world is not really a world of humans, but a world of mindless multi-celled organisms.

Mindless no. Mindful. completly aware of others and surroundings.

JonM:

Sounds kind of like communism?

Whats so wrong with communism? Communism without dicatorship would be the best thing that can happen to the planet.

[AzurePhoenix]

But with the caste system I explained' date=' there would be almost no difference between the strong and the weak, everyone would be as good as equal.

------

But even without emotion, we would still have instinct and intelligence. Our natural instincts tell us to do what is necessary to survive, and our intelligence drives that instinct further, making us look for ways to survive better or more conveniently, and ways to survive longer. In that way, science would continue to move on.

------

For your first question, I assume you are referring to entertainment and such. But without the emotion of fun and enjoyment, there simply wouldn't be any need for it. And where there isn't enough of something to go around, at least it would be as evenly spread as possible. Situations that can happen today where 90% of a given necessity goes to the most powerful 10% of the people would be avoided.

------

People want to do certain jobs because they bring them joy and happiness. Without emotion, that is obviously not an issue. So it's the greatest benefit to the whole that a person does what they are most skilled at, and can thus make the greatest possible contribution.[/quote'] Without the emotions to enjoy life, to derive personal meaining from life, there is no point to life at all. Might as well just hole up in the dirt and fossilize right now. You'd essentially accomplish just as much.

 

What does one person being happy do to help the greater body of humanity?

It has EVERYTHING to do with it!!! This isn't just one robotic person, this is every person. Not one person being happy vs mindless, but billions of people. The whole is not just a great web of the many, it is the sytem in which the many live their own, distinct lives, the very distinct lives that give point to life, that actually serve as the breeding grounds for all the things that give humanity its few redeeming qualities, technology included. Because technology isn't just a drive to succeed, it is fueled by passion, by desires, needs and wants, the wonder of discovery, the joy of finding the truth, the satisfaction of accomplishment. In almost every era you see, you will find that the greatest technologies are those of war, fed by war, which is in turn feuled by the hearts of individual people. And of all the greatest technologies of the ancient past, many were created by men alone who put their hearts into creating, not for any reason or goal, but just to create for the Hell of it, from Heron to Archimedes to Da Vinci. Were they sought to create specific inventions? Were they employed for their skills? Of course, but in each, and in others, you will see that their drive was not based on this, but rather on soemthing from within, soemthing with heart.

Soulless efficiency won't lead to advancement, but decay. Without something to work for, to attain on the personal level, there is no reward for work, so why try at all?

 

And also, ideas can be forced onto unwilling people, so they eventually believe them. Just look at the growth of Christianity.

... Are you frickin' kidding me!?!?! If people don't want it on such a scale, it's obviously not good for those people!!! Humanity doens't matter, the people do. We aren't a computer program, we're living, thinking, feeling beings, and that is the only kind of life worth living at all.

[-Demosthenes-]

But without the emotion of fun and enjoyment, there simply wouldn't be any need for it.

There would cease to be a need for humanity as well.

 

Mindless no. Mindful. completly aware of others and surroundings.

Even animals use crude emotion to govern their actions. Without emotion there truly would be absolutely no reason to exist. Why would we want to progress in science if we had no emotion? What would stop people from just laying on the ground and doing nothing? There simply would be any reason to do anything.

 

Whats so wrong with communism? Communism without dicatorship would be the best thing that can happen to the planet.

Truly, communism is seen as negative in of itself, that is only true of the type of government it spawns. It wouldn't need a totalitarian government if people had no emotion, ambition, or greed. But, without emotion (like I said before) there is simply no reason not to just lay down and die.

 

I can't help but feel that you are trying to make some kind of point... If so, then out with it!

[Mokele]

Most eastern religions aren't so much religions as they are ways of life.

 

Incorrect, and only because we falsely set up western religions as the "standard". Eastern religions are very much "religions", as my theology-major GF and any of her *numerous* eastern religion profs will testify to.

 

So, back to the point, how can you claim "religion is bad" while ignoring eastern religions. That's like saying all US coins just have a picture of a president on them because you can't be bothered to look at the other side of the coin.

 

If it weren't for the Catholic Church pushing astronomy back almost 1000 years, Islam would have had almost no astronomy to study, as they would have soon reached the limit of what you can learn about astronomy without having a telescope.

Not to mention that the theory of creationism, which most western religions are based around, conflicts with evolution. And evolution has been as good as proved by science.

 

Actually, what happened in Europe barely affected the development of astonomy in the Islamic world; there was no global "scientific community" at the time, thus each culture more or less did things on it's own.

 

And how far would science have gotten if it weren't for the very prevalent European attitude of past centuries that studying the natural world was a way to gain insight into God?

 

How far would modern science have come without the work of one particular monk with an odd fascination with pea plants?

 

Like most things in life, religion has good and bad sides, and can be used for good and bad.

 

Then why don't you try providing some examples of that?

 

Nuclear weapons.

Introduced species as a "new" idea for controlling pests.

DDT spraying.

 

Need more?

 

Yes, but things like honesty would still exist, and people wouldn't be allowed to just kill each other. They would be a matter of efficiency rather than morals. Obviously murdering random people is detrimental to the efficiency of humanity as a whole, so it would not be tolerated.

 

So what about honesty. It's pretty efficient to just make up things to justify your actions rather than actually using facts. Intellectual integrity is based on a moral/honor system, nothing more.

 

But with the caste system I explained, there would be almost no difference between the strong and the weak, everyone would be as good as equal.

 

Bullshit. The leadership caste clearly has authority, and with that comes the capacity to accumulate power. No caste system has even been equal. Look at India.

 

But even without emotion, we would still have instinct and intelligence. Our natural instincts tell us to do what is necessary to survive, and our intelligence drives that instinct further, making us look for ways to survive better or more conveniently, and ways to survive longer. In that way, science would continue to move on.

 

That's not science, it's engineering. Science includes things that have no applicable point, such as my own work. And often, they useless bits of knowledge for knowledge's sake give rise to the greatest advances. But without the curiousity to examine the world beyond what makes things more efficient, we would never even think of these possibilities.

 

So you'd rather have warfare between governments?

 

False dichotomy. Just because I do not automatically support one unifed government does not mean that I don't think we can exist peacefully. Governments *can* learn to co-exist, you know.

 

What does one person being happy do to help the greater body of humanity?

 

Help them be happy.

 

Second, there is no "greater body of humanity". It's a fiction, something that doesn't really exist. Point to it. What color is it? What does it feel like, taste like? Nothing.

 

"Humanity" is nothing but a collective term for a mass of individual humans. As such, you cannot help "humanity" with means that hurt humans, as you're damaging the individual unit and somehow hoping that this will bring good results to something which is solely defined as the total of the individual units.

 

The best way to help humanity it by helping humans.

 

And who's to say that won't be possible in time?

 

What would be the point, though? You'd still have unmodified, free humans to contend with, and for all that effort, why not just make a race of robots who'd serve us and provide for us? It'd be simpler, more cost effective, and would sidestep all the messy human rights violations of your plan.

 

And also, ideas can be forced onto unwilling people, so they eventually believe them. Just look at the growth of Christianity.

 

First you denigrate it, then you seek to emulate it. Hypocracy, anyone?

 

That's right, they did nothing someone else couldn't have done.

 

And how do you know that? How do you *know* they didn't have precisely the right genes and precisely the right environmental stimuli to arrive at the point to make these contributions? If that's the case, the sheer mathematical probability of someone else just happening to find it isn't too great.

 

Mindless no. Mindful. completly aware of others and surroundings.

 

Yes, mindless. I'm completely aware of my desk, yet I have no emotions towards it, no curiousity about it, nothing. As such, I pay it no mind, and it doesn't enter my thoughts. Your idea would reduce humanity to just such a state.

 

Whats so wrong with communism? Communism without dicatorship would be the best thing that can happen to the planet.

 

How about the fact that it's failed every time it was tried?

 

How about the fact that it will *always* fail since it runs counter to basic human selfishness, our oldest and deepest instinct? Dictatorship or not, it *will* fail, simply because humans are *programmed* to compete with other humans and aquire more, always more. In fact, I'd argue that the dictatorships were the only thing keeping communist societies from disintigrating within a decade of their creation. It's a horribly flawed and worthless system, based on ideas of what humans should be like, rather what they *are* like.

 

I can't help but feel that you are trying to make some kind of point... If so, then out with it!

 

I disagree, I think we've just got a garden-variety troll.

 

Mokele

[JonM]

I think the perfect humanity is a world with matrix-like fields in which humans are genetically engineered by robots and at a young age nanorobots will enter various parts of the brain and stimulate the pleasure centers for the entire lifespan, adding this to other technology and chemicals would simulate a complete psycho-paradise world all contained within the brain for a lifetime of awesome bliss a million times greater than the best heroin high. The dead would be fed intravenously to the living, who are in pods.. all maintenance will be done by robots...

 

Works for me... anyone else?

[ffsjoe]

think the perfect humanity is a world with matrix-like fields in which humans are genetically engineered by robots and at a young age nanorobots will enter various parts of the brain and stimulate the pleasure centers for the entire lifespan, adding this to other technology and chemicals would simulate a complete psycho-paradise world all contained within the brain for a lifetime of awesome bliss a million times greater than the best heroin high. The dead would be fed intravenously to the living, who are in pods.. all maintenance will be done by robots...

 

Works for me... anyone else?

 

No.

 

Ice demon, who would benefit from having a world like yours?

Sure there would be technological advances but whats the point if you can't enjoy it.

 

Do you want to be the leader?

Don't you want to have emotions or are you going to be the only one that can have them?

 

What happens to people that don't want to conform to what you want them to do? Are you going to just kill them, like Hitler?

[JonM]

its probably what will happen to a large extent... or at least there will be a market for people who want to live the rest of thier lives in a computer simulated psycho-paradise bliss

[-Demosthenes-]

Sure there would be technological advances but whats the point if you can't enjoy it.

Why would there be advances if no one cares?

[Bio-Hazard]

The ability to be immortal, get the hell of this planet and travel space, along with meeting other species.

 

All this other crap can wait. Matter of fact, the picture perfect human society is where people actually give a damn about science and don't dribble and waste their time in the arts. People who aren't good at science go into the arts. Sadly they are too stupid to understand that your brains ability to do science will deteriate if you do not try hard. Also business majors.. sooner or later people will wise up and actually ask for the same wages, ugh. I don't believe in money these days.

 

I do my best to understand physics, chemistry, and electronics to create a salvaged recycable land where I macgyver things to survive. Other people, they can't do that. Why? They suck, they waste their life away buying American Eagle and watching the most popular TV shows.

[ecoli]

This is a post about what you think would make humanity perfect. That is my aspect of a perfect humanity, whats your? Do you have a better idea, Mr. Critism?

 

you can call me ecoli.

 

I agree with Mokele here. My vision of a perfect humanity is pointless waste of energy, because everybody has a different vision. My perfect vision will, invariably to lead to someone else's suffering becasue they do not agree with my vision. Since my vision would want to eliminate any human suffering, a paradox would occur and my the universe of my perfect world would unravel.

[Mokele]

Well, perfectability aside, a good dose of gene therapy with reptilian DNA would do this species good.

 

After all, how much cooler would swimming be if you could hold your breath for 3 hours?

 

Mokele

[Ice Demon]

Without the emotions to enjoy life, to derive personal meaining from life, there is no point to life at all. Might as well just hole up in the dirt and fossilize right now. You'd essentially accomplish just as much.

-----

It has EVERYTHING to do with it!!! This isn't just one robotic person, this is every person. Not one person being happy vs mindless, but billions of people. The whole is not just a great web of the many, it is the sytem in which the many live their own, distinct lives, the very distinct lives that give point to life, that actually serve as the breeding grounds for all the things that give humanity its few redeeming qualities, technology included. Because technology isn't just a drive to succeed, it is fueled by passion, by desires, needs and wants, the wonder of discovery, the joy of finding the truth, the satisfaction of accomplishment. In almost every era you see, you will find that the greatest technologies are those of war, fed by war, which is in turn feuled by the hearts of individual people. And of all the greatest technologies of the ancient past, many were created by men alone who put their hearts into creating, not for any reason or goal, but just to create for the Hell of it, from Heron to Archimedes to Da Vinci. Were they sought to create specific inventions? Were they employed for their skills? Of course, but in each, and in others, you will see that their drive was not based on this, but rather on soemthing from within, soemthing with heart.

Soulless efficiency won't lead to advancement, but decay. Without something to work for, to attain on the personal level, there is no reward for work, so why try at all?

 

 

But there is still a point to living even without emotion. Think about a colony of ants. Do the ants just give up and stop working because they cannot derive personal satisfaction from their work? Of course not. They work to contribute the the well-being and survival of the colony as a whole. There is no need for emotion to drive them to work. Humans are nothing more than animals that have developed intelligence, so if you take away humanity's emotions, the result will not be much different. Our intelligence would only mean that we could work towards advancement rather than just survival.

 

 

We aren't a computer program, we're living, thinking, feeling beings, and that is the only kind of life worth living at all.

 

 

That may be true to those that have known emotions, but to those that have never had emotions, such a conjecture can never be made. Just like animals that do not have humans emotions will never think their lives are worthless because of that, humans several generations down who no longer remember emotions won't think that, either.

[-Demosthenes-]

But there is still a point to living even without emotion.

Yes, efficiency and lack of conflict. The point is that without emotion human life is devoid of any reason to live anyway.

[bascule]

The point is that without emotion human life is devoid of any reason to live anyway.

 

Emotion is the root of all of your reasons for living? It certainly isn't for mine...

[Mokele]

Oh, look, back to defend your patheticly mis-informed ideas, are you, "Ice Demon"?

 

I notice you avoided replying to any of my points. It's ok, it's hard to admit you were wrong about something, so take your time.

 

As for your more recent efforts to salvage what remains:

But there is still a point to living even without emotion. Think about a colony of ants. Do the ants just give up and stop working because they cannot derive personal satisfaction from their work? Of course not. They work to contribute the the well-being and survival of the colony as a whole. There is no need for emotion to drive them to work.

 

False analogy. You cannot analogize humans to a species which has a brain so tiny that, when it's head it cut off, it only dies because it starves to death.

 

On top of that, ants are doing what they do for purely selfish, individualistic ends, via kin selection. If they 'rebeled' and tried to reproduce on their own, they'd have meager success, but if they all work together to ensure the reproductive future of their sisters (the queens spawned by the current queen, their mother), they derive immense genetic benefit, since each of those new queens is 75% identical to them (most hive insects have an odd genetic system called haplo-diploidy, in which males have only half the full complement of chromosomes, which prevents damaging effects of inbreeding and allows extremely high levels of genetic kinship between siblings).

 

So basically, the only time high-level social interactions exist is when it's for the selfish benefit of everyone involved. In fact, as a side note, some species of bees produce psuedoqueens, workers that transform into queens in order to cheat the system. Even in your "ideal" of eusociality, it's all based on selfishness with occaisional cheating where possible.

 

Humans are nothing more than animals that have developed intelligence, so if you take away humanity's emotions, the result will not be much different. Our intelligence would only mean that we could work towards advancement rather than just survival.

 

We work towards advancement just fine now.

 

On top of that, you've totally missed the point: Why is advancement so hot? Why choose that over happiness? Especially when both can co-exist.

 

That may be true to those that have known emotions, but to those that have never had emotions, such a conjecture can never be made. Just like animals that do not have humans emotions will never think their lives are worthless because of that, humans several generations down who no longer remember emotions won't think that, either.

 

And this makes it ethical to take those emotions away how?

 

Let's rephrase what you're saying: "It's ok to have slaves, because after several generations, they won't be able to understand or desire freedom anymore, so it's fine." And before you claim strawman, I'd note that this analogy is actually *beneficial* towards you, since what you advocate is far, FAR worse than slavery, since slaves can still enjoy *some* meager happiness and possibly escape/rebel.

 

Emotion is the root of all of your reasons for living? It certainly isn't for mine...

 

Isn't it? Even my lust for scientific knowledge is driven by wonder, curiousity, and some level of competetiveness (and a dash of arrogance). I actually used to be in engineering, and never did well not because I didn't understand, but because without that emotional component, I just didn't care enough to do things like, well, my work.

 

Mokele

[-Demosthenes-]

Emotion is the root of all of your reasons for living? It certainly isn't for mine...

What else is there? The will to live is tied to emotion isn't it?

[Ice Demon]

No it can be washed out of people. What should I take over first, The US or A third world country for my plot of World Domination? *evil laugh*

[Mokele]

Lame jokes are not going to distract us from your inability to counter any of the points raised against your plan.

[Ice Demon]

I not saying it doesn't have flaws. Im saying it is as close to perfect as we are going to get. I find no reason to counter your points because I know you can't come up with a better humanity. All in all, my idea of humanity is better than yours, seeing you can't even come up with one.

[Phi for All]

I didn't see anyone else mention this, but if you eliminate all emotion, currency, religion and everything else that is a source for conflict, why do you need a warrior caste? What will be the source of your "times of war"?

 

Here's the perfect world:

 

Exactly what we've got. Make things perfect and you stagnate completely. Take away the incentives to improve imperfection and you create ennui. Take away emotion and you destroy spirit. Take away all obstacles to living and life becomes a crutch where everything is done for you. Utopia always sounds nice because striving for perfection is what we do. But actually reaching perfection would probably destroy humans within a few generations.

[Mokele]

I not saying it doesn't have flaws. Im saying it is as close to perfect as we are going to get.

 

It's so flawed as to be worthless. And if you were paying attention, you'd notice how myself and others have shown how it's far, far inferior to the current state of affairs.

 

So you want to force this horribly flawed and misconceived plan on us, insisting that the flaws aren't that bad? Have you ever considered working for Microsoft?

 

I find no reason to counter your points because I know you can't come up with a better humanity. All in all, my idea of humanity is better than yours, seeing you can't even come up with one.

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I happen to think that an idea has to be able to stand on its merits to be worthy of consideration, rather than simply sucking less than the alternative.

 

However, I'll follow Phi and declare this as my ideal for you to compare to. Given we've already shown your idea to be far, far worse than even the worst nightmare of the world as it is (I *meant* it when I said your idea is worse than slavery), I'd say I win pretty handily.

 

Now, do you actually have anything *useful* to say, or are you merely going to dogmaticly insist your idea still holds water, no matter how many holes we're punched in it.

 

For someone so down on religion, you have an awful lot of blind faith.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

I not saying it doesn't have flaws. Im saying it is as close to perfect as we are going to get. I find no reason to counter your points because I know you can't come up with a better humanity. All in all, my idea of humanity is better than yours, seeing you can't even come up with one.

 

The goal is not to see who can come up with the best plan for humanity. That's too big a desicion for one person.

 

But hey, if you want to be told that your vision is the perfect solution to all of humanities' problems and that you alone were smart enough to come up with it, then I have no problem lying to you. After all... plenty of other cruel, heartless dictators have had ideas similiar to your own. So, congradulations.