The issue of human stupidity, and dealing with it

[techstepgenr8tion]

Fluffalyzer - there's only one problem, well, 46 problems, and they're in every cell in our body. Untill we can learn to reproduce and get rid of those issues we'll never advance. Being stupid herd animals and being doministic is called natural law and the gene pool has everything to do with it (edit: nm, looks like you know all about that - I just hope we find a way to cure ourselves of that even if it means our own extinction and the birth of another race).

[Leto729]

You Fluffalizer:
Are still wrong to force or want to force Your ideals on others.

[Lurk Hurk Gurk]

According to your ideals.

And remember, it would result in the end of an order of magnitude greater forcing of ideals upon people.

[richard]

Human stupidity; it is the foundation of all major societies and cultures. While humans have the greatest capability for intelligence of all animals, our thinking is also the most irrational and error-prone, ie. stupid.

i completely agree

[Leto729]

Those capable of correcting their flaws themselves could get such freedom in their therapy; others would need to have it forced upon them, and any rebellion, which would likely asrise, would need to be stopped through the use of whatever force neccessary.

That is a Dictatorship like any Government We have Lived on this World.

The control of thought imposed on people would only go as far as to debug the workings of their minds, fixing the faults that render them irrational and prevent them from making full use of their capabilities. They would then be free, and more able than ever, to think for themselves. What I wonder is why you are so strongly against this sort of "control", but not against the ongoing cultural and societal indoctrination and brainwashing forced upon every person able to think and communicate in the world; it is in the end not only far more oppressive, but forces the stupidities of their culture, society, and in many cases religion, onto the next generation in addition to their own; this indoctrination and brainwashing would cease, leaving people free to develop their individuality in any way they want, as long as it does not present any direct harm to others.

Mankind has been playing God. When is playing God good in the end?

Whether genetic engineering would make humanity better or worse depends on for what purpose and in what way it is done. Making humanity smarter, stronger, healthier, able to live longer, and by nature rational, would be a very worthy achievement to make.

A rational person does something stupid because of a lack of either the data or the processing capability needed to come up with a better solution. An irrational person does stupid things because of a faulty mind that bases its decisions on the garbage resulting from broken thought processes. The minds of irrational people are like buggy software, and should be seen and treated in a similar way.

Humans are not computers. You want to make Humans though like computers. Humans have more capabilities than computers.

Even with Human faults Humans need freedom not imposed freedom.

[Leto729]

Fluffalizer

Ultimately You what to Live in a Utopia a Man made Utopia. Man has never been able to secede in this endeavour either. That is why I have debated this with You in the end.

[Lurk Hurk Gurk]

That is a Dictatorship like any Government We have Lived on this World.

As you probably understand, imposing a worldwide revolution would require quite a bit of force. It is inevitable that the transition becomes violent; in order to succeed, any resistance would have to be crushed. Once it were over, the situation could then improve.

Mankind has been playing God. When is playing God good in the end?

Throughout history, as advances have been made, many things have been described as "playing god". Those things are now accepted and beneficially practiced. I see no reason why this would be any exception.

Humans are not computers. You want to make Humans though like computers. Humans have more capabilities than computers.

Those capabilities I want to preserve, while at the same time fixing the flaws.

Even with Human faults Humans need freedom not imposed freedom.

What humanity needs is a massive overhaul before it kills itself. Or, if that is not possible, being completely eradicated as soon as possible, preventing it from doing any more harm and sparing it the suffering of a gradual downfall. Humanity's choices are as follows: 1. A slow, painful death, dragging along the world with it. 2. Abandoning earth but keeping the human nature, spreading like a virus to other planets, consuming them as well. 3. Sorting itself out, advancing, and prospering. 4. Eradicating itself, bringing itself to peace.

Which do you prefer?

[Lurk Hurk Gurk]

Ultimately You what to Live in a Utopia a Man made Utopia. Man has never been able to secede in this endeavour either. That is why I have debated this with You in the end.

The ideal would be a utopia. How close it would be possible to get cannot be said for sure, but any significant improvement over the current, miserable state of humanity would be well-worth it. Many ideas for achieveing various kinds of utopias have been made, a few of them tried, and failed. Those ideas tried counted on humanity somehow at heart being capable of achieving it in the end, which it clearly isn't, if only it gained a certain leadership. I'm thinking of a way to transform part of the core of human nature in a way that would make the forming of a utopia quite simple. Thus, the main shallenge is not the forming of the utopia in itself, but what precurses it.

[QuirkyCarla]

This thread sucks ass.

[Leto729]

You I think are to much of a pessimist Fluffalizer. With Humanity for We have not yet destroyed Ourselves yet and don't see us do that either.

[McGiver]

You I think are to much of a pessimist Fluffalizer. With Humanity for We have not yet destroyed Ourselves yet and don't see us do that either.

yet!

with humanity everything boils down to the self.  and i think that is fine, but it is not handled properly.
greed is rampant in every human being.  every human wants more and more for the self.  what human being need to realize is that what is best for you, is oftimes best for the group.  and humans need to consider is communal egoism, and i do not mean ethnocentricity.  i mean all humans.
and we need to be more forwatd thinking, ie: the environment, the needs of the impoverished, etc...

problem is the greed.  humans have become backstabbing, lying, users of the moment.

honesty in social interactions would be a good start.

[Leto729]

yet!

with humanity everything boils down to the self.  and i think that is fine, but it is not handled properly.
greed is rampant in every human being.  every human wants more and more for the self.  what human being need to realize is that what is best for you, is oftimes best for the group.  and humans need to consider is communal egoism, and i do not mean ethnocentricity.  i mean all humans.
and we need to be more forwatd thinking, ie: the environment, the needs of the impoverished, etc...

problem is the greed.  humans have become backstabbing, lying, users of the moment.

honesty in social interactions would be a good start.

as You said "greed is rampant in every human being."
I have never been greedy. Most people that I have meet are not this way either they may want or desire something better though.

You said "with humanity everything boils down to self."
That is being apart of being a Human.

[thepeaguy]

This thread sucks ass.

It does, doesn't it?

Go back to your fucking coffee bar hangouts, sprouting out the same babble that has been said a thousand times, you pseudo-intellectual (the thread author).

[Lurk Hurk Gurk]

I do not visit any coffee bar hangouts, nor frequent any other kind of hangout. Care to explain why those posts were "the same babble that has been said a thousand times", and why by making them I would be pseudo-intellectual?

[Nomaken]

Well.. pseudo-intellectuals are supposedly people who take a shot at seeming intellectual and fail transparently, and one of the ways they do that is by saying really trite, predictable, unoriginal shit about whatever theyre talking about.  It usually looks like they read whatever they're saying directly out of a book.  I haven't read through all this arguing bullshit so i couldnt tell you if what you are saying is pseudo-intellectual or not.