[starman2003]

Modern capitalism is quite different from the way things were thousands of years ago.

I doubt capitalism will even exist in a century or so, not any more than democracy.

[late]

Now? This began over 20 years ago. The term "fascism" is obsolete; it's a failed system of the 20th century. Time to move on, think of something new.

There is, or at least used to be, a Royalist Party in America. I had a prof who was a card carrying member. I think the idea is crazy, but he was a really good prof, and we had things in common.

Fascism and nobility may be obsolete, but fascists and royalists are still kicking around.

[late]

I doubt capitalism will even exist in a century or so, not any more than democracy.

Wake me up when you have something to replace it.

[grassroots1]

Wake me up when you have something to replace it.

Barbarism.

[starman2003]

There is, or at least used to be, a Royalist Party in America…. I think the idea is crazy

And virtually impossible.

Fascism and nobility may be obsolete, but fascists and royalists are still kicking around.

The term "fascism" is obsolete but not the fundamental system. The key difference between monarchy and "fascism" is that the first has historically preceded democracy whereas the latter has supplanted it.

[Skynet]

Natural breeding is the best eugenics. The state should support financialy families with many children... whereas in countries with high birthrates should women after the 2nd child receive medication to prevent further children.

[starman2003]

Natural breeding is the best eugenics.

Present society is pretty antithetical to eugenics. The most intelligent and capable women are encouraged to have careers not kids, leaving breeding to their lesser sisters.

The state should support financialy families with many children... whereas in countries with high birthrates should women after the 2nd child receive medication to prevent further children.

A two child limit should be official policy everywhere. No way should the state encourage big families. Of course you can't limit family size by law under democracy.

[Skynet]

Present society is pretty antithetical to eugenics. The most intelligent and capable women are encouraged to have careers not kids, leaving breeding to their lesser sisters.

This is even if you are atheist a dead end you have no genetic legacy....


Fastest way would be the prohibition of contraceptives.


Germany could just recover so fast after WW2 because the Nazis were able to skyrocket the Birthrate


The current path will lead to the movie Idiocracy :-(

[starman2003]

Germany could just recover so fast after WW2 because the Nazis were able to skyrocket the Birthrate

In anticipation of lebensraum which never materialized(in the end).
You have to take into consideration the environmental impact of more people--it's more than bad enough as it is. Also the possibility AI will make much of humanity superfluous.

[Skynet]

We have enough "Lebensraum" and ressources to have several 100 billion in the asteroid belt. We have just to built space elevators... more humans means also more statisical occurance of Da Vinci like genuis...

[starman2003]

We have enough "Lebensraum" and ressources to have several 100 billion in the asteroid belt. We have just to built space elevators…

Humans evolved under earthly conditions. Adapted to them only, they wouldn't do well in low/zero gravity environments.


The problem isn't insufficient intelligence but underutilization of what already exists. Btw AI may top even the best human intelligence.

[Skynet]

Humans evolved under earthly conditions. Adapted to them only, they wouldn't do well in low/zero gravity environments.

Currently you are right we have to limit the population.

But as soon as we have space elevators there are no limits.
We can have artificial gravity, by rotation of the habitat

The problem isn't insufficient intelligence but underutilization of what already exists. Btw AI may top even the best human intelligence.

In certain fields like geral knowledge AI leads...

But doubt in creativity to develop new usefull inventions... even its art is not creativity just statistical averrage.
Gemini is intelligent but a different kind then the human one.

[starman2003]

Currently you are right we have to limit the population.

But as soon as we have space elevators there are no limits.
We can have artificial gravity, by rotation of the habitat

I'm all for a vigorous space program and expansion into the solar system and beyond, ultimately. But I doubt most of current humanity is well-suited to it. They'd get bored on a space station or asteroid. Also, in order to have a great space program, current society would have to do a volte face i.e. much less emphasis on the individual, more on a common cause or organization. Some semblance of that is possible with current humanity, but it requires coercion and the means to do it. Better in the long run to just design new beings that are not only less fragile, or better suited to the rigors of space, but less self centered.

In certain fields like geral knowledge AI leads...
But doubt in creativity to develop new usefull inventions... even its art is not creativity just statistical averrage.
Gemini is intelligent but a different kind then the human one.

In some areas, humanity may retain an edge for a long time if not indefinitely. One possible approach may be cyborgs combining the best of humanity (albeit partly artificial) AI etc.

[Skynet]

I'm all for a vigorous space program and expansion into the solar system and beyond, ultimately. But I doubt most of current humanity is well-suited to it. They'd get bored on a space station or asteroid. Also, in order to have a great space program, current society would have to do a volte face i.e. much less emphasis on the individual, more on a common cause or organization. Some semblance of that is possible with current humanity, but it requires coercion and the means to do it. Better in the long run to just design new beings that are not only less fragile, or better suited to the rigors of space, but less self centered.

The long run thinking is an extreme problem of democracies, therefore I opt to absolute Monarchy which can realize projects over centuries like cathedrals...


We do not need a new humanity by design... but one through evolution (coincidence)... changing the Humanity to live better in Zero gravity is a mistake we need earth like environment everywhere... it is easier to create this environment then to play risky genetic games with the future of mankind

In some areas, humanity may retain an edge for a long time if not indefinitely. One possible approach may be cyborgs combining the best of humanity (albeit partly artificial) AI etc.

You are right this AI + human brain would be incredible, we are not far away.




Back todays eugenics: most genetic disabilities can easily bee detected before birth...

[starman2003]

The long run thinking is an extreme problem of democracies, therefore I opt to absolute Monarchy which can realize projects over centuries like cathedrals...

Monarchy is a dinosaur. What's needed, and coming I think, is a new authoritarianism based on a secular ideology of the future not "divine right" i.e. mythology of the past.

We do not need a new humanity by design... but one through evolution (coincidence)... changing the Humanity to live better in Zero gravity is a mistake we need earth like environment everywhere...

Too costly and impractical.

it is easier to create this environment then to play risky genetic games with the future of mankind

Not all of mankind necessarily just the spacefarers. Creating a habitable Venus or Mars is one hell of a tall order.

[Skynet]

Monarchy is a dinosaur. What's needed, and coming I think, is a new authoritarianism based on a secular ideology of the future not "divine right" i.e. mythology

One party state and a an confucian officers dictature with limited term of 10 year to rule??

Monarchy is not secular it has a bit of theocracy because the King claims to have gotten the power by God...




Regarding such big genetic manipulation it would not work except you are ready to create sponge-beings to survive a zero gravity... easer would be rotation and algae reactors in zero gravity... algae with some artificial flavours it could taste like a milkshake

[starman2003]

One party state and a an confucian officers dictature with limited term of 10 year to rule??

No term limit unless the ruler somehow became incompetent.

Monarchy is not secular it has a bit of theocracy because the King claims to have gotten the power by God…

Of course, an archaic institution based on myth.

Regarding such big genetic manipulation it would not work except you are ready to create sponge-beings to survive a zero gravity... easer would be rotation and algae reactors in zero gravity... algae with some artificial flavours it could taste like a milkshake

I was thinking in terms of cyborgs, or largely metallic/artificial beings.

[Skynet]

In Balkan we practice eugenics especially my ethnicity is obsessed with genetics. My Family (at least 600 Years military tradition) we do not make children with those we love but with a woman who will give birth to the best soldier.

[Verv]

Monarchy is a dinosaur. What's needed, and coming I think, is a new authoritarianism based on a secular ideology of the future not "divine right" i.e. mythology of the past.

This seems incorrect simply because we are now getting a taste for what rule by elites with a singular narrative means, even when that narrative is loosely based off of our own democratic histories.

Total authoritarian domination from the top down by a single power structure sounds advantageous when you have this idea that your correct concept will undoubtedly be that which rules.

But that is a disaster since the possessors of power will not be able to interminably uphold that value, and no system can be created that is "human-proof" in terms of upholding those virtues...

I think it would make sense to say that we need to return to an actually bit more rigid, unyielding, rights-based system that has that special sort of element of autocracy in terms of it actively denying people the right to install a totalizing philosophy.

And that is why we yearn for a sort of new, powerful authoritarian structure right now, because the high principles of liberty and human rights are seemingly failing to prevent totalizing Euroliberalism from taking over.

In Balkan we practice eugenics especially my ethnicity is obsessed with genetics. My Family (at least 600 Years military tradition) we do not make children with those we love but with a woman who will give birth to the best soldier.

[starman2003]

This seems incorrect simply because we are now getting a taste for what rule by elites with a singular narrative means, even when that narrative is loosely based off of our own democratic histories.

No wonder it's so lousy, and no model for a future one.

Total authoritarian domination from the top down by a single power structure sounds advantageous when you have this idea that your correct concept will undoubtedly be that which rules.

But that is a disaster since the possessors of power will not be able to interminably uphold that value, and no system can be created that is "human-proof" in terms of upholding those virtues…

It would help if no later ideology is shown to be better (truer) and in any event the increased role of AI/machines can mitigate the impact of human vagaries.

I think it would make sense to say that we need to return to an actually bit more rigid, unyielding, rights-based system that has that special sort of element of autocracy in terms of it actively denying people the right to install a totalizing philosophy.

As I see it, real authoritarianism will arise, not because the masses want it, but because democracy (which has few open opponents) will ultimately break on account of its inability to address key problems, in the areas of economics, foreign policy and the environment. An "unyielding rights based system" is obsolete as individual irresponsibility has come a ruinous luxury.

@Skynet That's the spirit. What's most important is not what an individual would prefer (love) but what's in the best interest of something greater (even if not that specifically).