Scientific Civilization [modified]
-
This thread is apparently about 'tyrannical science', such as Brownian motion or superfluidity.
-
What do you think of a society governed by science and science only? A society so mechanized and organized that it can be viewed as a machine and controlled with variables. Tweaking the variables in the machine would cause a cascade effect effecting every individual. Everyone would be thoroughly cataloged, everything from what they buy, where they drive, where they walk, facial expressions noted using AI that analyzes CCTV footage 24/7. Psychology would certainly be used in the system. The mentality of people would be manipulated with social engineering. The media would be the major outlet of such manipulation. Nobody would be allowed to reproduce without a license. Law breakers, people who don't pay the taxes and fees, and politically incorrect people are castrated. Education would be highly regulated, everyone from childhood to collage would be required the necessary conditioning to be a "productive member" of society. Moral integrity is systematically broken down. Morality is immoral. Virgins are looked down upon. Those who tell the truth are liars, and actual liars are righteous. Everyone has to work and continue to work, except the privileged "disabled". Savings would be stealthed away and debt is the only way to stay afloat in the economy. People are punished for what they think, what they ingest, and what they say. Defiant people are sent to man made hells and forbidden to buy or sell anything as their money would be electronically disabled.. There would be nowhere to run or hide, you would have no choice as you are owned by the ruling elite. You must do what you are told to do or suffer the punishments. You would be a cog in a highly organized and controlled machine, unable to think for yourself or do what you want. You would not be a human, but a unit. The science of tyranny is absolute law.
modified on Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:26 PM
-
What do you think of a society governed by science and science only? A society so mechanized and organized that it can be viewed as a machine and controlled with variables. Tweaking the variables in the machine would cause a cascade effect effecting every individual. Everyone would be thoroughly cataloged, everything from what they buy, where they drive, where they walk, facial expressions noted using AI that analyzes CCTV footage 24/7. Psychology would certainly be used in the system. The mentality of people would be manipulated with social engineering. The media would be the major outlet of such manipulation. Nobody would be allowed to reproduce without a license. Law breakers, people who don't pay the taxes and fees, and politically incorrect people are castrated. Education would be highly regulated, everyone from childhood to collage would be required the necessary conditioning to be a "productive member" of society. Moral integrity is systematically broken down. Morality is immoral. Virgins are looked down upon. Those who tell the truth are liars, and actual liars are righteous. Everyone has to work and continue to work, except the privileged "disabled". Savings would be stealthed away and debt is the only way to stay afloat in the economy. People are punished for what they think, what they ingest, and what they say. Defiant people are sent to man made hells and forbidden to buy or sell anything as their money would be electronically disabled.. There would be nowhere to run or hide, you would have no choice as you are owned by the ruling elite. You must do what you are told to do or suffer the punishments. You would be a cog in a highly organized and controlled machine, unable to think for yourself or do what you want. You would not be a human, but a unit. The science of tyranny is absolute law.
modified on Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:26 PM
Civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs. Science would have to provide one or the other.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
How is it not?
Because the state you describe (rather like the Third Reich with advanced technology) is not supportive of Science. Science cannot progress without imaginative people. Tyrannies are suspicious of imaginative people, even (especially?) among the elite. Paranoia ensures that scientists are restricted in their studies, else they may become a threat. E.G., What if a scientist became able to control the mind of 'the dear leader'? Unthinkable. Yours is a society that adopts technology, rather than utilizes Science. Historically, Technology has developed without knowledge of the underpinning science. Social Engineering is a 'soft' technology, which has been practised throughout recorded history. You appear to set little store by the conditioning that your citizens will receive from childhood to college. Your society seems to be controlled by the good old fashioned threat of punishment, where are the rewards?
Intel 4004 wrote:
Law breakers, people who don't pay the taxes and fees, and politically incorrect people are castrated.
What a lenient tyranny - just execute them, as we did a couple of centuries ago. (Castrated? Only men are punished? I suppose the women will be scrubbed and sent to the elite? Punishment enough, you reckon?)
Intel 4004 wrote:
People are punished for what they think, what they ingest, and what they say.
But the human mind is like a sophisticated computer[^], so what is thought and said is determined by what is ingested. If the media are controlled, how can what the mind digests and egests be unacceptable?
Intel 4004 wrote:
Defiant people are sent to man made hells and forbidden to buy or sell anything as their money would be electronically disabled.
A tyranny would execute them - more efficient.
Intel 4004 wrote:
Nobody would be allowed to reproduce without a license.
Long overdue :).
Intel 4004 wrote:
The science of tyranny is absolute law.
No, absolute law is the definition of
-
Civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs. Science would have to provide one or the other.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs.
Philosophy?
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Philosophy?
Sure. If the philosophy is that civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
How is it not?
Because the state you describe (rather like the Third Reich with advanced technology) is not supportive of Science. Science cannot progress without imaginative people. Tyrannies are suspicious of imaginative people, even (especially?) among the elite. Paranoia ensures that scientists are restricted in their studies, else they may become a threat. E.G., What if a scientist became able to control the mind of 'the dear leader'? Unthinkable. Yours is a society that adopts technology, rather than utilizes Science. Historically, Technology has developed without knowledge of the underpinning science. Social Engineering is a 'soft' technology, which has been practised throughout recorded history. You appear to set little store by the conditioning that your citizens will receive from childhood to college. Your society seems to be controlled by the good old fashioned threat of punishment, where are the rewards?
Intel 4004 wrote:
Law breakers, people who don't pay the taxes and fees, and politically incorrect people are castrated.
What a lenient tyranny - just execute them, as we did a couple of centuries ago. (Castrated? Only men are punished? I suppose the women will be scrubbed and sent to the elite? Punishment enough, you reckon?)
Intel 4004 wrote:
People are punished for what they think, what they ingest, and what they say.
But the human mind is like a sophisticated computer[^], so what is thought and said is determined by what is ingested. If the media are controlled, how can what the mind digests and egests be unacceptable?
Intel 4004 wrote:
Defiant people are sent to man made hells and forbidden to buy or sell anything as their money would be electronically disabled.
A tyranny would execute them - more efficient.
Intel 4004 wrote:
Nobody would be allowed to reproduce without a license.
Long overdue :).
Intel 4004 wrote:
The science of tyranny is absolute law.
No, absolute law is the definition of
Bob Emmett wrote:
Yours is a society that adopts technology, rather than utilizes Science
I rather imagine that CSS doesn't understand the difference. The concept that science is about asking questions evades him - as it does many other people who think that it can provide an answer to every question - would evade him from the get-go, since his education is extremely limited. His original description is simply another example of his having wasted an evening surfing from one tin-foil beanie site to another and found something that was so simplistic that even he understood the words.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Philosophy?
Sure. If the philosophy is that civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates? Okay - opiates and caffeine.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs. Science would have to provide one or the other.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
False dichotomy much?
-
What do you think of a society governed by science and science only? A society so mechanized and organized that it can be viewed as a machine and controlled with variables. Tweaking the variables in the machine would cause a cascade effect effecting every individual. Everyone would be thoroughly cataloged, everything from what they buy, where they drive, where they walk, facial expressions noted using AI that analyzes CCTV footage 24/7. Psychology would certainly be used in the system. The mentality of people would be manipulated with social engineering. The media would be the major outlet of such manipulation. Nobody would be allowed to reproduce without a license. Law breakers, people who don't pay the taxes and fees, and politically incorrect people are castrated. Education would be highly regulated, everyone from childhood to collage would be required the necessary conditioning to be a "productive member" of society. Moral integrity is systematically broken down. Morality is immoral. Virgins are looked down upon. Those who tell the truth are liars, and actual liars are righteous. Everyone has to work and continue to work, except the privileged "disabled". Savings would be stealthed away and debt is the only way to stay afloat in the economy. People are punished for what they think, what they ingest, and what they say. Defiant people are sent to man made hells and forbidden to buy or sell anything as their money would be electronically disabled.. There would be nowhere to run or hide, you would have no choice as you are owned by the ruling elite. You must do what you are told to do or suffer the punishments. You would be a cog in a highly organized and controlled machine, unable to think for yourself or do what you want. You would not be a human, but a unit. The science of tyranny is absolute law.
modified on Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:26 PM
Ok. That confirms it. You're a fucking idiot.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
mostly because you're projecting your own feelings of inadequacy when confronted with scientific information
This is an example of psychological warfare. I understand things quite well, though I may not be able to word my thoughts exactly as I think them. Now I have thought about this quite thoroughly. The human mind is like a sophisticated computer. It has input and output. No matter how intelligent you are your mind is as only as good as what is inputted. If the input is controlled then your mind is controlled.
Seriously? Not to belittle what's left of your reasoning after the drugs, but brains are nothing like computers except on a level that is so utterly trivial as to be meaningless. Computers do not self-assemble and self-organize from a single microchip. Computers do not rewire themselves throughout their lifespan. The transistors and hard drives in computers do not die and become permanently inoperable when deprived of electricity. Get the picture? Your insight contributes nothing to an understanding of neurology or human behavior. Which, as I alluded to, if you had any sort of education on the subject, you would already know.
- F
-
False dichotomy much?
Sorry, I don't understand what that means.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
civilization can only be maintained by two possible agents - religion or drugs
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates? Okay - opiates and caffeine.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates?
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ok. That confirms it. You're a fucking idiot.
Rob Graham wrote:
That confirms it. You're a f***ing idiot.
Wow, you sure do wait until all the evidence is in, don't you? :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Seriously? Not to belittle what's left of your reasoning after the drugs, but brains are nothing like computers except on a level that is so utterly trivial as to be meaningless. Computers do not self-assemble and self-organize from a single microchip. Computers do not rewire themselves throughout their lifespan. The transistors and hard drives in computers do not die and become permanently inoperable when deprived of electricity. Get the picture? Your insight contributes nothing to an understanding of neurology or human behavior. Which, as I alluded to, if you had any sort of education on the subject, you would already know.
- F
No, he is correct. He never said it was like a conventional desk top computer. But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
Fisticuffs wrote:
if you had any sort of education on the subject, you would already know.
Do you?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Sorry, I don't understand what that means.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
-
No, he is correct. He never said it was like a conventional desk top computer. But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
Fisticuffs wrote:
if you had any sort of education on the subject, you would already know.
Do you?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
That's why i used the phrase 'except on a level so utterly trivial as to be meaningless.' My post was only a paragraph, Stan, did you really just stop at the first five words? There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output? Well, excuse me while I shit my pants - what an amazing insight. Nobody has ever thought of that before. It's like a 0.5 second footnote in an intro to introductory neurology course. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you?
Um, yes Stan, I do.
- F
-
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What kinda evidence do you have that there are ONLY two things that can POSSIBLY maintain civilisation?
Some 5000 years or so of actual civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the brain is most certainly a computer, it is just designed along different principles.
That's why i used the phrase 'except on a level so utterly trivial as to be meaningless.' My post was only a paragraph, Stan, did you really just stop at the first five words? There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output? Well, excuse me while I shit my pants - what an amazing insight. Nobody has ever thought of that before. It's like a 0.5 second footnote in an intro to introductory neurology course. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you?
Um, yes Stan, I do.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
There is no evidence of design, and it's like no computer we have in existence today. So what exactly is this metaphor right about? That they're both black boxes with input and output?.
Well, except that its a black box which we are inside of. But it is most certainly a computer. Thats what mine does anyway.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Um, yes Stan, I do.
Such as?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Do you mean 19th century US's dependence on opiates?
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There was no '19th century US dependence on opiates'.
Read up on it, Stan. Opiates were the prime ingredient in most patent medicines until the beginning of the 20th century. At which point, the country started doing coke - which lasted until 1929 when the drug became illegal - and as a result the stock market crashed. By the way, marijuana was also legal until about the same time. I have been assuming that your desire to turn back the clock to the kind of country we used to have included decriminalizing those drugs. Isn't that what you have been arguing for?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin