If you could create a new society from the ground up, what would you do?

[xsmoffx]

I'd put only kind persons and philosophers on the planet. And of course only healthy people with beautiful appearance.

[1715498163]

1715498163

[1715498163]

1715498163

[commandrix]

I'd say Nickenburg gets the point of this thread better than a few of the commenters here. The point was to see what YOU would do if you had the chance to create a whole new society from the ground up, not argue about the ills of existing Earth-based societies or bash each other over differences of opinion.

[nickenburg]

I'd say Nickenburg gets the point of this thread better than a few of the commenters here. The point was to see what YOU would do if you had the chance to create a whole new society from the ground up, not argue about the ills of existing Earth-based societies or bash each other over differences of opinion.

Thnx man, I once saw a video about this I only cant find it anymore, because I dont know the title.
And it said, That the world has enough land and resources to give everyone a equal piece of land
Give them everything they need on that land, they also said the goverments can do that but they wont.
The only want to create difference's between us to make us fight.

George carlin on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgps85scy1g

[commandrix]

I'd say Nickenburg gets the point of this thread better than a few of the commenters here. The point was to see what YOU would do if you had the chance to create a whole new society from the ground up, not argue about the ills of existing Earth-based societies or bash each other over differences of opinion.

Thnx man, I once saw a video about this I only cant find it anymore, because I dont know the title.
And it said, That the world has enough land and resources to give everyone a equal piece of land
Give them everything they need on that land, they also said the goverments can do that but they wont.
The only want to create difference's between us to make us fight.

George carlin on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgps85scy1g

Not a problem. My personal opinion is that humans are good at finding reasons to fight. Even if you do divide up the land equally and give each person "forty acres and a mule," somebody somewhere will get upset that somebody else got a more fertile piece of land than he did. But at least you're on the right track here. Start people off on a roughly equal footing and see what they do with it.

[hello_good_sir]

See quote below for why you are deluding yourself.

If you could control others, there would no longer be life and evolution, because competition would cease. A static system where everything is known a priori is in fact dead.

You have to allow for variance, e.g. in offspring.

The passage that you quoted seems to have no relevance to what I am talking about.  Please clarify what I am missing.

I would not control others, and there would be evolution.  What I would be doing is providing an excellent starting point.

Your point about variance is correct, but again I'm not trying to make a perfect society where everyone is 100% perfect all the time.  However if you started with excellent people who had excellent parents (meaning that the founders are typical members of families with excellent DNA, rather than exceptional people from families with mediocre DNA), chances are that the vast majority of their children are going to be excellent as well.  So yes, there will be jerks, maybe something like 1% of the population, but that is not so bad compared to Earth, which is something like 30% jerks.

[ranlo]

I'd put only kind persons and philosophers on the planet. And of course only healthy people with beautiful appearance.

How do you determine who is "kind?" Someone who gives away things and helps others? How do you know it's selfless and not for other nefarious reasons?

What constitutes beautiful? I've seen people that were beautiful to me that others disagreed with, and vice verse. What you're talking about is completely subjective.

[AnonyMint]

See quote below for why you are deluding yourself.

If you could control others, there would no longer be life and evolution, because competition would cease. A static system where everything is known a priori is in fact dead.

You have to allow for variance, e.g. in offspring.

The passage that you quoted seems to have no relevance to what I am talking about.  Please clarify what I am missing.

I would not control others, and there would be evolution.  What I would be doing is providing an excellent starting point.

Your point about variance is correct, but again I'm not trying to make a perfect society where everyone is 100% perfect all the time.  However if you started with excellent people who had excellent parents (meaning that the founders are typical members of families with excellent DNA, rather than exceptional people from families with mediocre DNA), chances are that the vast majority of their children are going to be excellent as well.  So yes, there will be jerks, maybe something like 1% of the population, but that is not so bad compared to Earth, which is something like 30% jerks.

Define excellent. Every definition you could make is either unspecific on traits or would be brittle in terms of resilience.

Fitness is not about your preferences, rather about adjusting to all possible outcomes which all occur eventually.

Coase's Theorem and the Second Law of Thermodynamics apply.

Refer to this:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

[hello_good_sir]

Define excellent. Every definition you could make is either unspecific on traits or would be brittle in terms of resilience.

Excellent is whatever I want it to be.  I could have a formal standard or just go with my gut feeling.  It is just like breeding animals.  If you want a cow that makes more milk you carefully choose the cow and the bull based on production performance and pedigree.  If I want smarter humans I would carefully select people based on their IQ scores.

Fitness is not about your preferences, rather about adjusting to all possible outcomes which all occur eventually.

If I am the selection mechanism then, by definition, fitness is about my preferences.

Coase's Theorem and the Second Law of Thermodynamics apply.

No they don't.  You're throwing around words and concepts that you don't understand, and which have no relevance to my ideas.