58 replies to this topic

[platypus]

This is why I'm so in favor of communal living. I can easily envision a world made up of just small communal settlements where crime no longer exists. No more law enforcement, no prison industry, and no punitive practices of any sort. Can you imagine that! People would suffer less stress and live much longer in a world without punitive practices.

Sure there is less crime in a totalitarian communal society where everybody knows everybody. But, I very much value the freedom to think and speak freely, which is not really compatible with any totalitarian system.

[william7]

I very much value the freedom to think and speak freely, which is not really compatible with any totalitarian system.

In a communal society, you would still be able to think and speak freely. If you were dedicated to living communally in order to prevent crime, violence, and other exploitative and abusive behavior, you would not want to engage in speech harmful to the communal way of life.

[platypus]

I very much value the freedom to think and speak freely, which is not really compatible with any totalitarian system.

In a communal society, you would still be able to think and speak freely. If you were dedicated to living communally in order to prevent crime, violence, and other exploitative and abusive behavior, you would not want to engage in speech harmful to the communal way of life.

Is there going to be a freedom of religion in the commune or not?

[Athan]

I very much value the freedom to think and speak freely, which is not really compatible with any totalitarian system.

In a communal society, you would still be able to think and speak freely. If you were dedicated to living communally in order to prevent crime, violence, and other exploitative and abusive behavior, you would not want to engage in speech harmful to the communal way of life.

And if you're not dedicated to living communally? Are you allowed to leave?

As for the "obvious necessity of living modestly and simply in small communal societies", I disagree entirely. If all communities were internalized, the human race would no longer progress. We would not globalize, would not band together as a race, would not go explore space as a race, or accept a universal cultural identity. Basically each little community would be a little country with its petty, underlying hate for the other communities as they don't have the exact same values as the other communities. To hate, to be jealous, to feud over petty things is a part of the human condition. Granted, these feuds probably wouldn't be solved with violence - but that's another issue.

To quote an over-used sports phrase: "No Pain, No Game". Great risk gives the opportunity for great rewards - communal living would destroy a lot of motivation for science, research, lower curiosity (because, hell, God will tell us one day) and entirely circumvent the dangerous - yes, dangerous - growth process of our race. You may ask, why would science and research not be as prevalent? Greed is a major driving force in human society. The X-Prize, the Methuselah Prize, etc. are all based on rewards. It offers a nice, ego-soothing pat on the back that everyone needs and works towards. Every human on this planet wants to be respected for their accomplishments on a large scale - in a communal society, they'd be respected by a small community which wouldn't fulfill the needs of many people who go to the extremes to garner that respect. They'd go to the other communities and show off there as well, and once again the stirrings of a unified government would start up as the local colonies began adapting to the practices that these extremist, hard-working people give to them as they are probably more efficient. Traditionalism is foolish - it won't stop the young from joining in the movement of unification no matter what their parents say. And if they never learn what you may call 'their lesson', they'll be parents one day teaching their children the same thing.

The communal society proposed is self-defeating, as it reverts back to the small-communities societal system that we had tens of thousands of years ago which obviously evolved into what we have today. I contend that that societal evolution would happen again, except even faster because of our still-advanced technology. The only way to prevent this from happening is to prevent these extremists from leaving, and that requires that you take away personal liberties...and even still, that won't work for long.

All this is is a personal desire for a utopia that wouldn't last long, as no utopias do. Most people probably don't share your vision of this utopia anyways - you may say, "that's because they haven't given it a chance" but that's quite narrow-minded. This proposal has been used and has failed shortly after application for millennia, and has been proposed again and again in organized society.

It won't work. And it'd just push back human knowledge, expansion, and the learning process. As for "divine intervention" on ourselves, you are overly humble. We are certainly errant children, but we learn quickly from our mistakes and expand because of those mistakes. We are highly intelligent, growing children that will grow into wise old men - you propose aging backwards into toddlers. As Lazarus says, it's just a fantastical gilded cage that hasn't and will not work.

[Lazarus Long]

In a previous post I said I support the idea of *intentional communities*. I still do but what you mean Elijah by Christian Communism and Commune and I mean by Intentional Community are vastly different. I am describing a purely voluntary association of like minded (secular or not) individuals that share in the labors and benefits of community with a common goal toward the results of things like land use, food type and growing methods, child rearing, energy production, resource and task sharing, etc.

This idea does not have a single one size fits all means or goal. It is also something that does not depend on an outside authority to act as a cohesive agent or force. It does not depend on religion, though religion certainly has been shown to work for some groups. It does not even depend on politics though that too has demonstrated some effectiveness at uniting groups.

Both religion and politics are also extremely susceptible to cults of personality acting to unite and thus they fail without those individuals present to sustain unity.

Aside from religion and politics the classic university structure and some types of businesses (classical foundry or mining towns, economiendas etc) are also examples of Intentional Communities, though again, there are pretty mixed reviews of these social experiments, albeit I am fond of the scholastic environ myself.

Plato's academy for example was not merely the archetype of the modern university community, it was by definition an Intentional Community with a mission.

Here is what I said previously on the subject in response to a previous dialog so as to just set the record straight. The intentional community in this case was for the purpose of establishing an off world colony but the basic principles are the same.

However, if you have some older grandparents that you wish them to live longer, try to focus on cryogenic facility. I believe nowadays techniques are mature enough. And Make sure you find a right company.

***

Also that many systems shall be considered to be changed as this trend is coming: set the retirement age longer, force more people to respect others beleifs.

This is a very important and intriguing point I have been giving a lot of consideration. First let's address the second part, the development of *intentional communities*.

I think there is great merit in developing such communities but the challenges are also very great socioeconomically. It is uncharted territory actually as the requirements for such communities depend on what amounts to neo tribalism. However these communities could be extremely stable and self reliant if they survive but they also require some form of economic integration into both the regional economy where they exist today and the global economy as well in order to succeed.

The first part I support but there is still great reticence on the part of most boomers to consider cryo and frankly a general disbelief in its reliability. Getting the idea of cryo out to the larger community requires a very different package of memes than have so far been employed and also requires a few more technical breakthroughs to support its popularization.

A more subtle and interesting approach that I would favor is to use Boomer's and Gen-X'ers (you kids are getting a little long in the tooth too you know) as the basis of off world colonization. I think more mature explorer/colonists could face the challenges better than many of the young because we are more psychologically and intellectually capable. We also carry a broader skill set and experience to bring to the goal and as a risk/reward we might also help foster the breakthroughs required to actually attempt the goal you initially propose like transhuman augmentation and enhancement. If we are going to experiment on humans it makes more sense to seek our volunteers from an older pool.

Not to be too dramatic or pragmatic, we are also more expendable.

Now we need more people to get into our research programs so that we can proceed the advancements of curing aging faster to our needing world. I think most babyboomers are optimistic, and they want to live forever as we do, so more funding and supports are needed.

I doubt you'll find a single person in this forum at least that is against this proposal however the political and socioeconomic practicalities are too important to ignore or we wouldn't have the problem in the first place. Perhaps if we had wars on death and disease instead of on drugs and each other the funding would be more readily available.

A lot of people say we are trying to defy the nature, defy the god. There is no god in my brain definitions. God, what's that? Just an illusion generated by ancient people.

However it is an illusion that still motivates a great many people (the majority worldwide apparently) and also defines their cultural identity. This is far easier to talk about than accomplish. I suggest the real solution here will come through social and species evolution combined with better education and the practical success of transhumanism.

Success is its own reward. When we can DEMONSTRATE the efficacy of manipulating the genome in positive manners as well as creating individuals that live longer and reverse some observable aspects of aging that are not merely cosmetic tricks then I think we can bring the majority around relatively easily. Until then it is an uphill battle and frankly a distraction from the more practical concerns.

Theological debate is always fun at first and for a little while but it is all too much like mental masturbation and watching angel dancing for my comfort. In the end it generally doesn't change anyone's opinion. People do that for themselves.

Also that many systems shall be considered to be changed as this trend is coming: set the retirement age longer, force more people to respect others beliefs.

Some of these ideas like raising retirement age are already happening but the political repercussions are pretty great and as for the second part that is totally illogical. As the history of the First amendment in my country demonstrates no one can be FORCED to respect someone else's beliefs. The best we can achieve I suspect is sufficient tolerance to coexist and reduce sectarian violence.

Even technocrats and singulatarians should be very wary of conversion by the sword.

[Shannon Vyff]

When I was in Isreal I toured a Kibbutz -- people had bad things to say about them too. I roomed with a woman who had spent a lot of her childhood on one. She was not planning on ever letting her children live on one, she disliked not being raised by her own parents. In Oregon I spent a lot of time on a hippy/artsy communal compound, the people were nice--the kids had fun, but the poverty seemed to limit their schooling, and thus future opportunities.

You really have to live that way, or tour a place to know what it is like beyond the many books out there. I'm for choice in any matter and not forcing things upon people, religion--living situations, economic standing or otherwise.

[william7]

Is there going to be a freedom of religion in the commune or not?

Yes indeed. There will be freedom to finally be able to fully practice true aand pure religion without the interference of false religion. It'll be great.

[william7]

And if you're not dedicated to living communally? Are you allowed to leave?

If you mean the kibbutz of the future, you wouldn't want to leave. To leave would be death to you - meaning a drastically shorter lifespan. All the technology and communal support for living out the longer lifespan would be unavailable to you. Death would probably be painful as well; whereas, in the kibbutz of the future dedicated to life extension, death coming at the end of a lengthy lifespan would be much less painful and easier to endure.

If all communities were internalized, the human race would no longer progress.

Why couldn't the kibbutz of the future continue to progress by sharing knowledge through the Internet? Couldn't the advanced computing systems of the future keep a world of small communal settlements working together and progressing towards the same goal in harmony with one another? The "universal cultural identity" you mention would still develop under these circumstances.

communal living would destroy a lot of motivation for science, research, lower curiosity (because, hell, God will tell us one day) and entirely circumvent the dangerous - yes, dangerous - growth process of our race.

Science and technology would still go on, albeit, at a slower and safer pace. If you've read the Bible, you'll notice God does not give man any new knowledge in science or any advanced technology. All He does is give man the necessary knowledge to build the character and social organization to wisely and safely use science and advanced technology and to live out the much longer lifespan.

The communal society proposed is self-defeating, as it reverts back to the small-communities societal system that we had tens of thousands of years ago which obviously evolved into what we have today.

Not at all. Those primitive societies you mention had very little knowledge and possessed no egalitarian ideals. Had they had the requisite knowledge and egalitarian ideals they would've avoided evolving into the anti-social and self-destructive organizations we see in history.

I contend that that societal evolution would happen again, except even faster because of our still-advanced technology

You fail to appreciate what the right level of knowledge applied correctly could do to slow that progression down substantially. The Book says we got a thousand years before it happens again.

This proposal has been used and has failed shortly after application for millennia, and has been proposed again and again in organized society.

Nothing like what I see happening has been tried before in history. Sure, there have been unsuccessful attempts because of lack of knowledge and the right conditions needed for success. Organized society has never in history faced the dire conditions it faces today. And, because of the uniqueness of these conditions, we'll develop out of the mess into something unique in history. It's prophesied to occur in the Book and the prophesy can't be broken.

We are highly intelligent, growing children that will grow into wise old men

We're highly intelligent in technical knowledge, but deficient in knowledge for developing righteous character necessary for growing into wise old men.

[platypus]

Is there going to be a freedom of religion in the commune or not?

Yes indeed. There will be freedom to finally be able to fully practice true aand pure religion without the interference of false religion. It'll be great.

Will there be a freedom of religion or not? May I become a Hare Krishna for example, raise my children in the religion of my choosing etc.?

[platypus]

Why couldn't the kibbutz of the future continue to progress by sharing knowledge through the Internet? Couldn't the advanced computing systems of the future keep a world of small communal settlements working together and progressing towards the same goal in harmony with one another?

No. Who would develop such systems? The most technical job available in a small community is likely going to be a PC administrator or similar. Why strive for a PhD in Raman Spectroscopy if there are no jobs in it anywhere? And who would teach you? Your utopia sounds more like a dystopia, not everyone wants to live within the bounds of a basically agrarian small-town society.

[Athan]

If you mean the kibbutz of the future, you wouldn't want to leave. To leave would be death to you - meaning a drastically shorter lifespan. All the technology and communal support for living out the longer lifespan would be unavailable to you. Death would probably be painful as well; whereas, in the kibbutz of the future dedicated to life extension, death coming at the end of a lengthy lifespan would be much less painful and easier to endure.

You greatly underestimate the restlessness and foolishness of youth...they are as a group far too short-sighted to think of these things before making a rash decision. Many would, of course, listen and make the wise choice but many would not. They would leave.

Why couldn't the kibbutz of the future continue to progress by sharing knowledge through the Internet? Couldn't the advanced computing systems of the future keep a world of small communal settlements working together and progressing towards the same goal in harmony with one another? The "universal cultural identity" you mention would still develop under these circumstances.

Why can't the internet-users in Nigeria just get along with the internet-users in the United States? They try to scam us, you know. Why would this be any different? These communities would be just like countries, and just as petty in their interaction.

Science and technology would still go on, albeit, at a slower and safer pace. If you've read the Bible, you'll notice God does not give man any new knowledge in science or any advanced technology. All He does is give man the necessary knowledge to build the character and social organization to wisely and safely use science and advanced technology and to live out the much longer lifespan.

If you'll forgive me, I'm far too ambitious and impatient at the current stage of human development to wait even longer for technology to come around and many would happen to agree with me. To quote FM-2030, "I have a deep nostalgia for the future." I can't wait longer than I already must.

As for god and the Bible, that is irrelevant - 'god' also gives man the necessary knowledge to hate, destroy, and unwisely and unsafely use science and advanced technology to kill each other. Think it's the Devil? Why not take him out? He's omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Yet, he chooses not to. He allows evil to persist and the theologians say that this is for 'free will' or 'original sin'. Well, didn't Jesus take on all of those sins in 3 days and kill them off? The 'free will' veil is illogical. If we had free will and were judged on those consequences, then why doesn't god pluck up some guy who's both a rapist and a murderer after he committed the crime? He wouldn't have free will to leave his prison? But of course god does not do these things, and allows this rapist/murderer to rape and murder more. Then of course, he'll be 'punished in hell'. Well, then the free will is gone again to alter one's choices in life after being trapped there.

Similar to the classic stone paradox that questions omnipotence, the existence of evil itself gives three options: god is inherently evil, god is inherently uncaring, or god does not exist - the third option is one I subscribe too.

Not at all. Those primitive societies you mention had very little knowledge and possessed no egalitarian ideals. Had they had the requisite knowledge and egalitarian ideals they would've avoided evolving into the anti-social and self-destructive organizations we see in history.

So you think we do have the knowledge? I don't believe that utopia can ever exist, no matter our knowledge. One man's utopia is another man's hell, and what you describe would be my hell. Avoiding those lessons then would have meant those anti-social and self-destructive organizations now. Avoiding lessons means nothing, as you have an eternity as a species to have no choice but to take the class.

You fail to appreciate what the right level of knowledge applied correctly could do to slow that progression down substantially. The Book says we got a thousand years before it happens again.

The bible does not have peer review and lacks scientifically verifiable data, and therefore I do not trust it's predictions. Slowing progression is not the same as stopping it - and stopping it would be a disaster. Why are you so afraid of the future that you have to stop it? It will come no matter what anyone thinks, including me or you.

Nothing like what I see happening has been tried before in history. Sure, there have been unsuccessful attempts because of lack of knowledge and the right conditions needed for success. Organized society has never in history faced the dire conditions it faces today. And, because of the uniqueness of these conditions, we'll develop out of the mess into something unique in history. It's prophesied to occur in the Book and the prophesy can't be broken.

The prophesy is once again not scientifically verifiable, and will probably not happen similar to thousands of doomsday predictions that have happened in the past. We are already something unique in history, and moving forward to something more is better than holding back and going back to square one. I contend that that lack of knowledge is the same today as it was in history's yesterday. The 'right conditions' are not present, and will probably never be present.

As for never happening in history, let's look at New Harmony, 1856...to quote Josiah Warren after it's collapse: "It seemed that the difference of opinion, tastes and purposes increased just in proportion to the demand for conformity. Two years were worn out in this way; at the end of which, I believe that not more than three persons had the least hope of success. Most of the experimenters left in despair of all reforms, and conservatism felt itself confirmed. We had tried every conceivable form of organization and government. We had a world in miniature. --we had enacted the French revolution over again with despairing hearts instead of corpses as a result. ...It appeared that it was nature's own inherent law of diversity that had conquered us ...our 'united interests' were directly at war with the individualities of persons and circumstances and the instinct of self-preservation... and it was evident that just in proportion to the contact of persons or interests, so are concessions and compromises indispensable."

Individualism would destroy your society just as it did New Harmony. I personally find conformity in most of it's forms detestable, anyways - individuality is what makes me myself and you yourself. Your system plans to destroy that, and that I cannot - and would not - accept.

We're highly intelligent in technical knowledge, but deficient in knowledge for developing righteous character necessary for growing into wise old men.

'Righteous character'? Wise old men normally have had checkered pasts...wisdom is derived from experience, not knowledge. What you propose is the destruction of free experience, and therefore we will never progress to developing righteous character and will not grow into wise old men.

[william7]

I am describing a purely voluntary association of like minded (secular or not) individuals that share in the labors and benefits of community with a common goal toward the results of things like land use, food type and growing methods, child rearing, energy production, resource and task sharing, etc.

This gives me hope for you. Longevity should always be considered a common goal the community works together to achieve.

This idea does not have a single one size fits all means or goal. It is also something that does not depend on an outside authority to act as a cohesive agent or force. It does not depend on religion, though religion certainly has been shown to work for some groups. It does not even depend on politics though that too has demonstrated some effectiveness at uniting groups.

The problem is, in order to form the highly egalitarian community of the future where advanced technology can be safely controlled and a lengthier life for all achieved, it will take true democracy and true Christianity to hold it together and make it last. I can see no way around this.

Both religion and politics are also extremely susceptible to cults of personality acting to unite and thus they fail without those individuals present to sustain unity.

I agree. This is why the intentional communities of the future need to be based on Godly personalities and not earthly ones.

I am fond of the scholastic environ myself.

Me too. I'm not against other areas of knowledge that do not conflict with the foundation. If it conflicts with or weakens the foundation it's no good.

Here is what I said previously on the subject in response to a previous dialog so as to just set the record straight. The intentional community in this case was for the purpose of establishing an off world colony but the basic principles are the same.

Thanks for posting this. I like the part where you say:

I think there is great merit in developing such communities but the challenges are also very great socioeconomically. It is uncharted territory actually as the requirements for such communities depend on what amounts to neo tribalism. However these communities could be extremely stable and self reliant if they survive but they also require some form of economic integration into both the regional economy where they exist today and the global economy as well in order to succeed.

To me the hope should be that the intentional communities will develop to the point where they're finally able to take over and control the regional and global economy when it falls apart.

[platypus]

The problem is, in order to form the highly egalitarian community of the future where advanced technology can be safely controlled and a lengthier life for all achieved, it will take true democracy and true Christianity to hold it together and make it last. I can see no way around this.

That will never happen. In Europe so many people live happily free from religions that an idea that they should join a community and subscribe to "Christian Communism" is downright laughable to them.

[william7]

When I was in Isreal I toured a Kibbutz -- people had bad things to say about them too.  I roomed with a woman who had spent a lot of her childhood on one. She was not planning on ever letting her children live on one, she disliked not being raised by her own parents.

I read this was a common complaint by kibbutz women, but that they petitioned the council and got more time with the children. I guess the idea was to separate the children from the parents and teach them that community was more important than family. I believe they erred using this approach and should have taught the importance of both the family and the community but not emphasizing one over the other.

In Oregon I spent a lot of time on a hippy/artsy communal compound, the people were nice--the kids had fun, but the poverty seemed to limit their schooling, and thus future opportunities.

The best possible education for communal children is needed to make it work well and last long.

You really have to live that way, or tour a place to know what it is like beyond the many books out there.

Thanks for this advice. My plans are to travel around and visit some of the communal groups in the United States when I get the chance.

I'm for choice in any matter and not forcing things upon people, religion--living situations, economic standing or otherwise.

Me too, but I believe global warming, terrorism, crime, natural disasters, accidents, etc., will force people to adopt communal living as the wisest way to live to avoid these problems as well as to create the conditions necessary to live out exceptionally long lifespans and to safely use the advanced technologies currently on the horizon.

[william7]

Will there be a freedom of religion or not?

A universal religion needs to develop out of the mess the world is currently in and serve as the foundational education for all communal settlements worldwide. The Bible contains the best educative material for this purpose if construed correctly and applied in the communal setting. The Book has been translated into numerous languages and spread in large numbers throughout the world. It's perfectly poised to do the job of unifying the world under a common communal banner.

[platypus]

Will there be a freedom of religion or not?

A universal religion needs to develop out of the mess the world is currently in and serve as the foundational education for all communal settlements worldwide. The Bible contains the best educative material for this purpose if construed correctly and applied in the communal setting. The Book has been translated into numerous languages and spread in large numbers throughout the world. It's perfectly poised to do the job of unifying the world under a common communal banner.

I guess that means there will be no freedom of religion, or what? Dissidents will not be tolerated? And freedom of speech?

[Athan]

Will there be a freedom of religion or not?

A universal religion needs to develop out of the mess the world is currently in and serve as the foundational education for all communal settlements worldwide. The Bible contains the best educative material for this purpose if construed correctly and applied in the communal setting. The Book has been translated into numerous languages and spread in large numbers throughout the world. It's perfectly poised to do the job of unifying the world under a common communal banner.

And what about the extremely large proportion of nonreligious/agnostic/atheistic people like myself who think that this would be idiocy? What about all the other religions who think it would be idiocy? I respect your opinions and I'm doing my best to understand your motives, but religion is a very subtly psychologically subversive component that could be manipulated so easily it's stupid - I cite the Catholic Church in the dark ages and beyond. It'd certainly unify the world, but in a very sick and...perverted sense. Why do you need a religion to unify these people? Unify them on the principles of their humanity - that is universal to most of the population...religion isn't. You needn't brainwash people to think that they all share nearly identical genes and DNA and unify them on that principle. Religion would require exactly that, however - because not all people believe in the same god or any god at all, for that matter. 99.9% of the population assuredly believes that they are human, even if they don't know the exact terminology. I know you're obviously a big Christian, but could you give a secular scenario to your communal setting?

[william7]

No. Who would develop such systems? The most technical job available in a small community is likely going to be a PC administrator or similar.

I thought the factories of the future are predicted to become smaller and easier to manage with unlimited resources? Nanotechnology or something. Wouldn't that make the computer technologies easier to use and to spread out to small communities? I know very little about this advanced computer stuff of the future. Maybe when the Singularity occurs the AI will show us exactly how to mass produce and use our computer technology communally under a universal religion. What do you think?

Why strive for a PhD in Raman Spectroscopy if there are no jobs in it anywhere?

Maybe we won't need such devices in the future if biology becomes more dominant than physics according to Freeman Dyson. See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20370. The hard sciences need to give way to the softer sciences. The meek will inherit the earth anyways.

Your utopia sounds more like a dystopia, not everyone wants to live within the bounds of a basically agrarian small-town society.

The Old Testament prophesy found in Micah 4:3-4 that everyone throughout the world will become agrarian during the Millennium can't be stopped. Even Freeman Dyson sees the dominance of green technology and communalism as inevitable for the future. Give it a chance.

[platypus]

No. Who would develop such systems? The most technical job available in a small community is likely going to be a PC administrator or similar.

I thought the factories of the future are predicted to become smaller and easier to manage with unlimited resources? Nanotechnology or something. Wouldn't that make the computer technologies easier to use and to spread out to small communities? I know very little about this advanced computer stuff of the future. Maybe when the Singularity occurs the AI will show us exactly how to mass produce and use our computer technology communally under a universal religion. What do you think?

Either we master the technology ourselves, which requires a University-system and specialisations like today. The other option is that post singularity we cease to be masters of our own future and let non-human machines handle the technology.

Maybe we won't need such devices in the future if biology becomes more dominant than physics according to Freeman Dyson. See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20370. The hard sciences need to give way to the softer sciences. The meek will inherit the earth anyways.

It's strange that you try to combine a stagnant iron-age society with a post singularity future. Quite frankly, I think it's more likely that people will live forever and conquer the galaxy rather than degenerate to become organic farmers.

The Old Testament prophesy found in Micah 4:3-4 that everyone throughout the world will become agrarian during the Millennium can't be stopped. Even Freeman Dyson sees the dominance of green technology and communalism as inevitable for the future. Give it a chance.

If there will ever be communalism it will be based on reason and not religion. Religions are mutually exclusive and to think some form of christianity will take over is foolishness. Anyway, the prophecy in the Old Testament can simply be wrong, like the flood-ark fairytale which we know to be BS.

[Futurist1000]

Sorry elijah3, I have to burst one of your bubbles. It seems that Israel's kibbutzim are introducing more capitalism into their communities.

Israel's kibbutzim jettisoning socialism

The kibbutz movement in Israel was founded on the rock of socialism, with communal ownership, dining, and even child-rearing arrangements expressing the unrealistic utopian egalitarian ideals rooted in 19th century Europe. But time was not kind to them, and the movement foundered in recent decades. But according to the International Herald-Tribune, at least some kibbutzim are thriving today, thanks to their rejection of the socialistic practices on which they were founded, in what writer Isabel Kershner calls a "suburbanized version" of the earlier model.

The story is a bit more complicated than a simple rejection of socialism, of course. Some kibbutzim remain relatively dogmatic in their socialism and are no longer declining. And the fate of the kibbutzim is intertwined with the larger political economy of Israel. Even the most reformed kibbutzim maintain taxes aimed at evening out income disparities, a sort of Democratic Party version of socialism lite. And many kibbutzim are selling off parts of their real estate holdings to newcomers, supporting socialism by selling off the communal assets piece by piece.
But once again, institutional survival proves to be the one force that causes socialist collectives to recognize that human nature is immutable.

[Live Forever]

Good for them. [thumb] They will be much better off for doing so.

[william7]

Sorry elijah3, I have to burst one of your bubbles. It seems that Israel's kibbutzim are introducing more capitalism into their communities.

This is nothing new and is to be expected. The kibbutzim are struggling to stay afloat in a sea of capitalism. When global warming starts to take its toll and capitalism goes into a tailspin, the kibbutzim will return to their roots and to a more purer practice than ever before. Count on it. Conditions are just not yet ripe for it.

[william7]

Good for them.  [thumb]  They will be much better off for doing so.

Some may be better off materially in the short term, but what about human character and the more important, nonmaterial, things in life? What's good in the short term may turn out bad in the long term.

[Live Forever]

Good for them.  [thumb]  They will be much better off for doing so.

Some may be better off materially in the short term, but what about human character and the more important, nonmaterial, things in life? What's good in the short term may turn out bad in the long term.

Well, in every single long term comparison between socialism/communism and capitalism that has ever taken place, capitalism has always won. Of course, this is something that I know we have disagreed about in other threads, so I won't try to convince you of it again here.

[william7]

You greatly underestimate the restlessness and foolishness of youth...they are as a group far too short-sighted to think of these things before making a rash decision. Many would, of course, listen and make the wise choice but many would not. They would leave.

The restlessness and foolishness of youth shouldn't be a problem if they're raised and educated properly and have nowhere else worthwhile to go.

Why can't the internet-users in Nigeria just get along with the internet-users in the United States? They try to scam us, you know. Why would this be any different? These communities would be just like countries, and just as petty in their interaction.

Those people in Nigeria are trying to compete with us playing our game. In the wonderful communal world of tomorrow, it'll be an altogether different game. We'll cooperate together instead of compete against one another.

If you'll forgive me, I'm far too ambitious and impatient at the current stage of human development to wait even longer for technology to come around and many would happen to agree with me. To quote FM-2030, "I have a deep nostalgia for the future." I can't wait longer than I already must.

Like many others in the world, being overly ambitious and impatient is more than likely your weakness. Great gains without justice and love are worthless, and "patience is a virtue" you know.

As for god and the Bible, that is irrelevant - 'god' also gives man the necessary knowledge to hate, destroy, and unwisely and unsafely use science and advanced technology to kill each other. Think it's the Devil? Why not take him out? He's omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Yet, he chooses not to. He allows evil to persist and the theologians say that this is for 'free will' or 'original sin'. Well, didn't Jesus take on all of those sins in 3 days and kill them off? The 'free will' veil is illogical. If we had free will and were judged on those consequences, then why doesn't god pluck up some guy who's both a rapist and a murderer after he committed the crime? He wouldn't have free will to leave his prison? But of course god does not do these things, and allows this rapist/murderer to rape and murder more. Then of course, he'll be 'punished in hell'. Well, then the free will is gone again to alter one's choices in life after being trapped there.

Similar to the classic stone paradox that questions omnipotence, the existence of evil itself gives three options: god is inherently evil, god is inherently uncaring, or god does not exist - the third option is one I subscribe too.

It's clear to me that you misunderstand God and the Bible. I advise you to do a serious study of the Bible with an open mind and a humble heart. I would be going way off topic if I tried to address all your questions here.

I don't believe that utopia can ever exist, no matter our knowledge.

So you don't believe what the futurists are saying? What about the Singularity and AI?

One man's utopia is another man's hell, and what you describe would be my hell.

I agree. Real Utopia might be too difficult for many to adjust to. Being meek and humble all the time, just doesn't fit their idea of a good time. You should, however, try and give it some thought. Possibly you can make the right changes.

Slowing progression is not the same as stopping it - and stopping it would be a disaster. Why are you so afraid of the future that you have to stop it? It will come no matter what anyone thinks, including me or you.

Preventing human aggression can only be beneficial. Too much of it going on today as it is. Slowing down its reemergence can only be a good thing.

Individualism would destroy your society just as it did New Harmony.

This article, at http://www.esoteric....u/Versluis.html, says New Harmony was successful for a time. People need to evaluate why these experiments failed and create a new and better model that takes into account the weaknesses in the previous failed experiments. Isn't this what scientists and technologists do?

I personally find conformity in most of it's forms detestable, anyways - individuality is what makes me myself and you yourself.

Conforming to something good is good. Deviating from what is good is what is bad.

[william7]

The other option is that post singularity we cease to be masters of our own future and let non-human machines handle the technology.

Why not? Let the non-human machines handle all the easy intellectual/egotistical/technical work while the humans focus on the hard character/superego/social development work.

[Athan]

The restlessness and foolishness of youth shouldn't be a problem if they're raised and educated properly and have nowhere else worthwhile to go.

Do you truly believe that? I know plenty of people who were "raised and educated properly" who were restless and foolish, and thought they had nowhere else worthwhile to go. This falls back on the 'nature vs. nurture' argument, which we could argue endlessly.

Those people in Nigeria are trying to compete with us playing our game. In the wonderful communal world of tomorrow, it'll be an altogether different game. We'll cooperate together instead of compete against one another.

If there is one universal truth about the human condition, it is that not all people cooperate or conform. Perhaps they're psychotic. Perhaps they don't enjoy your system. Who knows? Assuming that this system took over, it would simply be subject to the rise and fall of empires and governments that has both plagued and liberated and plagued our race, in that order. They're playing our game, granted, but changing the game simply demonstrates that the game can - and probably will - be changed again when we get bored of the previous game.

Like many others in the world, being overly ambitious and impatient is more than likely your weakness. Great gains without justice and love are worthless, and "patience is a virtue" you know.

Describe 'overly'. Being ambitious and impatient can be a good thing in many fields, as it gets things done. As for impatience, let's define that. Theologically, going by this website, impatience is "the lack of self-control, and leads to other and greater faults. It can easily grow into anger, irritability, harsh words, unpleasantness towards others, etc." Going from Wiktionary.org: impatience is the condition of being "restless and intolerant of delays, anxious and eager, especially to begin something." I go by the Wiktionary definition - I'm eager to begin things, to innovate, to invent, and I do not like delays that set me back. I can tolerate them, surely, but I don't like them. Do you? The theological/bible defintion is defining the lack of self-control, which is different. As for ambition: "A personal quality similar to motivation, not necessarily tied to a single goal.

It's clear to me that you misunderstand God and the Bible. I advise you to do a serious study of the Bible with an open mind and a humble heart. I would be going way off topic if I tried to address all your questions here.

Interpretation of the Bible is subjective, not objective. Give me your version of what you think it says, and I'll happily argue my interpretation in, perhaps, a different thread. One cannot misunderstand the concept of god or the teachings of the Bible - it's like saying there is only one interpretation to a work of art, or a poem. It's teachings are highly subjective, which may possibly account for the high division, especially on specifics, within - specifically - Christianity and other religions.

So you don't believe what the futurists are saying? What about the Singularity and AI?

Not fully, no. I don't trust their timescales. I believe it's attainable, surely, but it could be in 10 years or 1000. And I don't view the Singularity or AI as the beginning of a Utopian society, but a better one. In my opinion, being human entails the continual want for improvement. We haven't learned any lessons about conscious, self-aware artificial intelligence yet. We may totally mess up and inadvertently use them as slaves, and then they will revolt against us or kill us. Not even futurists view the Singularity as a period of utopia - it could just be the personification of dystopia instead. We won't know, and that's why we need to learn that lesson so perhaps we will not repeat it again as we have with racism and the like - and learning lessons is not equal to a Utopian society. I believe that we should work towards Utopia, though we might never get there.

I agree. Real Utopia might be too difficult for many to adjust to. Being meek and humble all the time, just doesn't fit their idea of a good time. You should, however, try and give it some thought. Possibly you can make the right changes.

'Real' utopia is extremely subjective. To some, utopia is a place full of lawless people who have sex constantly and like to smoke crack, run by a corrupt dictatorship that kills it's people without care. Hard to grasp? That's because you're not that person, and neither am I. Being 'meek and humble' is your version of utopia, and I respect that. Keeping working towards it, as that is what you want. I'm simply arguing on behalf of my own version, which does not include such elements. The 'right changes' to me are different than your version, and I respect that.

Preventing human aggression can only be beneficial. Too much of it going on today as it is. Slowing down its reemergence can only be a good thing.

Yes, but slowing down aggression has unintended side-effects. It decreases our curiosity, our drive, our thirst for what is, what might be, what should be...I agree that anger is no longer highly viable in a civilized world, but then again what of righteous anger? Someone kills a family member - it is illogical to seek revenge. Yet, you seek a veiled version of it called 'justice'. It's the same thing, except it's publicly more acceptable. Justice is the personification of revenge in a 'righteous' form.

This article, at http://www.esoteric....u/Versluis.html, says New Harmony was successful for a time. People need to evaluate why these experiments failed and create a new and better model that takes into account the weaknesses in the previous failed experiments. Isn't this what scientists and technologists do?

I fully agree with you. Working towards one's version of utopia is a good thing, but similar to a mountain path traveling steeply up onto a snowy peak, you will probably not get there. You might, but then you cannot stay there for long anyways. Then you search for that next peak. And it sounds like you're trying to do that, and I'm also trying to do that, just as everyone else is. But it is an ultimately personal, and therefore selfish, objective. You may think it's selfless for your community to exist, as you think that's what's best for humanity - but who are we to judge? Are we so egotistical to think that ultimately our goal is the correct one? I do not believe so, but it is reversely essential to work towards that which you wish - because it may be the right choice. You could be right. I could be. Who knows?

Conforming to something good is good. Deviating from what is good is what is bad.

Who are we, as a single community of simply billions, to judge what is right and what is wrong? You say, "Yes, I agree, that's why I look to God". I say that looking to a god for guidance is, however, ultimately dysfunctional because we then will never be independent. I believe in an evolutionary system in which we slowly get closer to perfection, but can never fully achieve it. And besides, maybe that super-being does not exist and we are doing only the psychologically comforting thing, rather than the realistic thing. I don't know - I believe that's what it is, you believe the opposite. Conformity does not get things done - it accomplishes nothing. There are no new ideas, because everyone accepts the facts as we know them. Our drive is destroyed, and we no longer progress. Individualism directly supports the circulation of ideas, and believes that everyone has a different set of opinions that they can contribute to the whole in an attempt to improve it. That's what you're doing, is it not?

[platypus]

I agree. Real Utopia might be too difficult for many to adjust to. Being meek and humble all the time, just doesn't fit their idea of a good time. You should, however, try and give it some thought. Possibly you can make the right changes.

'Real' utopia is extremely subjective. To some, utopia is a place full of lawless people who have sex constantly and like to smoke crack, run by a corrupt dictatorship that kills it's people without care. Hard to grasp? That's because you're not that person, and neither am I. Being 'meek and humble' is your version of utopia, and I respect that. Keeping working towards it, as that is what you want. I'm simply arguing on behalf of my own version, which does not include such elements. The 'right changes' to me are different than your version, and I respect that.

That's a great point. Religious people often have a hard time grasping that other people may have great and well thought-out reasons for rejecting both religion and religious utopias.

[william7]

Recently discovered this thought provoking website, at http://www.jewishvir...re/kibbutz.html, on the Kibbutz.

I believe it's going to take the same determined dedication as the early kibbutzniks in Israel to make immortality work.

Here's more material on the kibbutz for anybody interested:

http://www.ssc.wisc....29-03-int10.pdf
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Kibbutznik