The Real Life Forums Mock Presidential Election

[Mr.Shroom]

[quote="Deacon";p="389443"]Shroom, your faith in the inherent good of human nature is staggering. To suggest that the only reason negative behaviors exist is due to a lack of communication is head-scratchingly naive, especially for you.[/quote]

Actually, its beyond simple communication. Its an issue of empathy, being truly connected and caring about anothers suffering. Also, the system would boost ones intelligence and understanding beyond the emotional, into the factual.

The so-called 'inherent' good of humanity can old be achieved if someone is allowed to make an intelligent, informed observation upon the world, its workings, and its inhabitants beyond their own previously self-centralized and self-motivated needs. As I said, the needs of the few would become the needs of all.

In short, the system proposes this: Upgrade all human beings into intelligent, empathetic, unified beings who are truly equal and free in the ultimate democratic system, all people TRULY having a voice in the system.

If you had read into the topic, or perhaps even skimmed through the links presented, you would have understood that.

...And sorry, Mandor. The Smurfs are Communist, not transhumanist. I'm not half the idealist that Marx was.

[randomperson2]

Hey I guess you ae entitled to you own opinion, lets see how many utopians you can pull down, I suppose that is kind of the purpose of this whole thing.

After reading your initial post I would have sworn you were joking, but since you are evidently not, welcome aboard.

[Mr.Shroom]

By the proper use of technology and determination, I'm almost positive I or anyone else could pull it off.

Fear the science in your science fiction.

[randomperson2]

I have a couple of suggestions to toss out there, see what you guys think. How about we make bandwagon threads where we can layout and answer questions about our platforms.

I would also like to propose some kind of voter registration so we know what kind of constituency we are trying to win here.

Just ideas though I’m not sure how feasible they would be or desirable. I’m also not quite sure if we ever got an organizer lined up.

[Mr.Shroom]

Oh, and following a conversation I had with Deacon:

1)The proposed system is theoretical, though its based on sound technological evidence presented to us today (Human implants, nanotech, biotech, ect).

2)The theory is also based on a rather idealogical view of humanity. The idea that every human being is not, at their core, a selfish masochist who cannot be transformed into an empatetic person, is key. Under such a more negative\realistic\<insert title here> view, said system would fail.

Yay for semantics. Why don't we just do an 'offical' poll like we usually do, and link it here? Simple, sweet, and non-messy. Just make sure you also include a link to this thread IN the poll for people to read.

[YH]

[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="389689"]

In short, the system proposes this: Upgrade all human beings into intelligent, empathetic, unified beings who are truly equal and free in the ultimate democratic system, all people TRULY having a voice in the system.

[/quote]

I support this product and/or service.

[Bigity]

[quote="Imperator Severn";p="389152"]

Heh.

Shame on you guys for making fun of the Air Force. They control more sheer destructive power then any service, with the possible exception of the Navy. (Naval bombardment = teh win)

Yes, because Naval bombardment accounted for something like 3% of Japanese Casualties during the numerous amphibious assaults of WW2. You don't win wars by throwinf half-million-dollar missiles at your enemy; you win it by putting a rifleman in his house. Even in a nuclear war, ultimate victory or defeat will lie in the hands of ground troops. The first thing to go in a full-scale nuclear exchange will be the ability of either side to create more nuclear weapons. Much will survive, and the war will go on. All nuclear weapons will affect is the magnitude of the armies fielded.

Granted, this has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread, but I am disinclined to give a shit, considering how many of my own threads have been perverted.[/quote]

You'd be suprised at how effective some of the next generation of munitions are at totally eliminating ground forces in total. Granted, you will always need foot soldiers to take and hold ground, but the troops on the ground of the modern battlefield do not will it all, or lose it all for that matter.

And the Navy thing is more of an awesome thing to see, not so much a way to win battles

[randomperson2]

[quote="Imperator Severn";p="389152"]

Heh.

Shame on you guys for making fun of the Air Force. They control more sheer destructive power then any service, with the possible exception of the Navy. (Naval bombardment = teh win)

Yes, because Naval bombardment accounted for something like 3% of Japanese Casualties during the numerous amphibious assaults of WW2. You don't win wars by throwinf half-million-dollar missiles at your enemy; you win it by putting a rifleman in his house. Even in a nuclear war, ultimate victory or defeat will lie in the hands of ground troops. The first thing to go in a full-scale nuclear exchange will be the ability of either side to create more nuclear weapons. Much will survive, and the war will go on. All nuclear weapons will affect is the magnitude of the armies fielded.

Granted, this has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread, but I am disinclined to give a shit, considering how many of my own threads have been perverted.[/quote]

Because its an open shot an i cant help but take it.

Full scale nuklear war nothing survives, there are no winners because EVERYONE IS FUCKING DEAD.

If by victory will lie in the ground troops you mean, we shall determine vicory by whos cockroaches can kick whose ass then you are correct, but at that point Costa Ricas got the best war force on the planet.

[Deacon]

/me melts from the intense ignorance rays beating down on him from the above post by randomperson2.


[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="389759"]2)The theory is also based on a rather idealogical view of humanity. The idea that every human being is not, at their core, a selfish masochist who cannot be transformed into an empatetic person, is key. Under such a more negative\realistic\<insert title here> view, said system would fail.[/quote]
The "idiological view of humanity" that Shroom references there is that natural selection has created human beings with perfect, rational, with only "good" emotions, and wholly "good" minds, and that the only reason anyone ever does anything to hurt anyone else is because they are not fully aware of how their actions will hurt the other person. I do not subscribe to this theory, as it makes very little physiological, evolutionary, or philosophical sense, and it is not shown to be true in the experiences of my life.

The world in which Shroom's platform would be successful is the same world in which Communism would thrive. That world is not the one we see around us; it is fantasy, and I believe it borders on insanity to believe it is feasible, much less that it exists now.

[Mr.Shroom]

Now, now. Thats an excessive exaggeration. I'm not making anything even CLOSE to the assumptions Marx is. If I do make assumptions about human nature, its the following:

-Healthy, mentally sound human beings will not hurt another person if it will also hurt themselves in a vivid, impacting way.

-People have good and bad minds, and good and bad emotions. But the negative is normally strewn from negative factors from either outside or inside their person. I think by exposing someone to a 'larger world view' and giving them 'true empathy' could be more than enough to remove alot of that. Why would you feel sorrow if you knew people cared for you and would help you? Why would you feel jealousy if you knew the truth behind the matters of which your jealousy stems? Why would you feel hate if you were exposed to an honest explanation? The only reasons you would continue to do so is if, as Deacon claims, people are simply inherently too stubborn and selfishly mean-spirited by nature to overcome their bad sides.

Communism demands a GREEAAAAAAAT deal more trust into the faith of the human spirt, and the idea that someone will be uncorrupted by power. I don't even get involved in that. I just think that if everyone is truly connected and shares their world, you'll have less or at least no reason to interfight, and you'd be able to strive and solve all problems inherent in a government.

But we've talked about this. I would call Deacon's view of humanity cynical. And he would call mine optimistic.

...okay, he'd call it stupid and insane, but the basic idea is he doesn't like it.

What it comes down to is this: Do you believe people can, if given the chance and exposed to true empathy and raised up to the level to make intelligent, informed and all-ecnompassing choices, be raised to the greater good...or not?

Greater Good vs Inherent Evil: Thats really the case that Deacon is making. And while I sure could, if I wanted to, justify and give examples to support his case? I feel I can give more for the Greater Good.

*A Vote For the Shroomite Legion Is a Vote For The Greater Good of Tommarow! Vote for Shroom under the Unified Transhumanist party.*

[Salvation122]

[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="389689"]In short, the system proposes this: Upgrade all human beings into intelligent, empathetic, unified beings who are truly equal and free in the ultimate democratic system, all people TRULY having a voice in the system.[/quote]
We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own; your culture will adapt to service us?

[randomperson2]

Not the place for it but if you feel like debating this fact deacon I'll match you fact for fact, I am far from ignorant on this topic.

[Deacon]

[quote="randomperson2";p="390240"]Not the place for it but if you feel like debating this fact deacon I'll match you fact for fact, I am far from ignorant on this topic.[/quote]
No no, you're right. this is.

[Mr.Shroom]

Close, Salvation122! While full-on bodily cybernetics is a wee bit cruder than my idealized methology, its a valid substitute, as are many others someone could think up. (Programmable biocrystiline implants were mentioned, though that type of technology is even farther into the future than nanites and cybernetics!)

However, the system of GOVERNMENT I'm proposing isn't a tyrannical single-mind dominion system like the Borg. While an Avatar would be needed, perhaps, it would recieve its commands from the unified community of humanity, rather than dominating its own thoughts and wishes based upon the information fed to it by the billions of interconnected human beings.

...As far as I've admitted, anyway.

[Deacon]

Again Shroomy comes up with stuff that relies on the purity of the human spirit and the total lack of greed and lust for power for his framework of existance to remain erect (uh...huh-huh. erect.).