Notices
Results 1 to 55 of 55

Thread: Why doesent science have its own state?

  1. #1 Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    It has always bothered me why religion has its own state, countries have their own states based on geography. The jews have israel, a state for their people and their religion. And now i read that islam wants their own state aswell.


    Why isnt there a single state on earth for science?

    There is a Latin saying that goes "Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?"

    In my opinion humanity cant progress before we toss these old foolish traditions and lies, cultures and religions aside. Is there something to it - that the smart and wise simply dont wish to rule? And those who do wish to rule do it for their own gain only?

    Men of great knowledge and intellect through time has in most cases always seemed to never wish to rule. What if science had its own state?

    What power and growth such a place would be, what a utopia of knowledge and understanding it could become. Yet all these shortsighted fairytale lovers seem to bind together just fine (thinking of religious people in general)

    Why is it so hard for the smartest elite of humanity to make their own state and leave the idiots to fend for themselves? By idiots i mean people that dont care about progress, dont care about the future, dont care about wanting to know the truth and so on.

    If i got to chose a country to be born into if i was given the hypothetical option for a reincarnation id say "None, cause the country i want isnt founded yet" and that is a state based on science and truth.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Raziell; Israel is a State, but all persons are NOT Jewish. The Palestinians, want a separate State, from Israel and their are 57 States under Islam rule.

    For a great deal of History, the Vatican was the center of Science, but today science, technology and space programs are promoted by ALL States to different levels.

    I'm guessing your not happy with an apparent shut down of the current US Space Program along with the funding for a future program in question. This is troubling, but the US will get itself back on priorities, reasonably soon. Hang in there...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman DrNesbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Supermegatopian Labs
    Posts
    98
    Singapore? They don't go around chanting "Science! Science!" but it seems to be run by a bunch of rational eggheads.

    The soviet union claimed it's ideology was based on Science, I'm not sure that's what you want. Ayn Rand also wrote about how swell it would be if all the smart people got their act together and left the rest of mankind to itself. So you get both ends of the ideological spectrum

    Me, I'd say most of Science has little to do with politics, which is fine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Best thing is to get rid of people who want their own country ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Everyone uses science, but science itself is apolitical, no?

    Political economics and sociology are really the only sciences that are used in politics, that I'm aware of, although experts are consulted when need be, the decisions are made according to economic and social evidence, which is never as solid as physical, chemical and biological evidence.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Stamp collectors should have their own country too.

    And ornithologists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Everyone uses science, but science itself is apolitical, no?

    Political economics and sociology are really the only sciences that are used in politics, that I'm aware of, although experts are consulted when need be, the decisions are made according to economic and social evidence, which is never as solid as physical, chemical and biological evidence.
    Everyone uses something whilst carrying out their unconscious desires !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Flaunting science as a state-building ideology is every bit as dangerous as doing the same with religious fanaticism or a political utopia.

    I know I repeat myself, but "Gods Will Have Blood" (Les Dieux ont soif, also translated as "The Gods Are Athirst") by Anatole France is a must-read for anyone considering a rational revolution.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Everyone uses something whilst carrying out their unconscious desires !
    Your point eludes me. You do have a point, don't you?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Everyone uses something whilst carrying out their unconscious desires !
    Your point eludes me. You do have a point, don't you?
    Yes I do. The comment was about the use of science in decision making; my point was that people's decision making is often done on the basis of unconscious motivations and not known to the conscious -even if the conscious is talking about high-faluted stuff like Science.

    In fact the conscious will grasp hold of anything that looks like a good screen, something weighty like Science is perfect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Let me elucidate. I meant "this does pertain to the discussion in some way, no?"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    If i got to chose a country to be born into if i was given the hypothetical option for a reincarnation id say "None, cause the country i want isnt founded yet" and that is a state based on science and truth.
    Science has not yet grown strong enough to rule people. Science may have grown to whatever extent, but it is still a stupid fly in front of a giant elephant of beliefs and faith in religion, culture and region.

    In other words, the faith is so strong in people about their religion and their region that science has never been able to eliminate this, but in fact faith has widely utilized the science and unfortunately all scientists involve in it. I do not think there is any necessary to explain where and how science has been utilized for the sake of faith.

    So the faith is capable of rule the people as well as the science and science is the slave.

    Never imagine there may be a society ruled by pure science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    ^no comment

    I think a scientific state would be 100% anarchistic, but that probably says more about me than science.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Let me elucidate. I meant "this does pertain to the discussion in some way, no?"
    Here we see marcusclayman demonstrating the mechanism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Which mechanism is that? I simply want to know how your comment pertains to this discussion, because I fail to see the correlation. If you don't want me to understand that is one thing, but the burden is on you to speak in a way that other discussants understand. I'm not simply stating this to refute your point, I honestly don't know your point.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    It has always bothered me why religion has its own state, countries have their own states based on geography. The jews have israel, a state for their people and their religion. And now i read that islam wants their own state aswell.


    Why isnt there a single state on earth for science?

    There is a Latin saying that goes "Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?"

    In my opinion humanity cant progress before we toss these old foolish traditions and lies, cultures and religions aside. Is there something to it - that the smart and wise simply dont wish to rule? And those who do wish to rule do it for their own gain only?

    Men of great knowledge and intellect through time has in most cases always seemed to never wish to rule. What if science had its own state?

    What power and growth such a place would be, what a utopia of knowledge and understanding it could become. Yet all these shortsighted fairytale lovers seem to bind together just fine (thinking of religious people in general)

    Why is it so hard for the smartest elite of humanity to make their own state and leave the idiots to fend for themselves? By idiots i mean people that dont care about progress, dont care about the future, dont care about wanting to know the truth and so on.

    If i got to chose a country to be born into if i was given the hypothetical option for a reincarnation id say "None, cause the country i want isnt founded yet" and that is a state based on science and truth.

    REPLY: I have changed my mind about all this. I was looking at past events and what Raziel has proposed can be achieved by men and women with intelligence and goodwill and need not require any force of arms to achieve. I would think it would start out as a commune or network of communes much like the Amish have created in that sense. Of course this would not include religious indoctrination as the Amish have. But their network of different families owning their own properties with a strong commitment to ensuring each others well being is well worth taking a good look at as a model of one way of making this happen.
    They have been very successful in their own way. This would eliminate any question of how each members money is invested. You buy your own property and it is yours. No one but you has any say in how your money is invested. That was one of my big concerns as to how to go about making this dream of Raziel`s a reality. These are my ideas. I am not saying they are the right ones. Offering them up for consideration. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Another recommended read on a science state is Eugene Zamiatin's "We". Not a place you'd like to live in.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Hello Leszek 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    deletd,no longer fits with thread,inconsistant on my part. ...DS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Your pretty cold, you assume because someone doesn't express themselves well, they are cold, and all these other stereotypical characteristics. Maybe some of us have some degree of autism, or some other difficulty in expressing ourselves. Maybe we are from a different culture than yours, and you simply don't understand our expressions. We all come from different environments, and learn different ways to express ourselves, some are better at being understood than others, some recognize the usefulness of learning multiple ways to communicate... for example, should a how to manual be written as a series of haiku? should a love letter be written in the form of a dictionary?

    What you perceive as negative things(coldness, calculation, apathy), helps us to focus(hence calculation is involved). It is a psychological observance. Happiness helps us take in more information, but this can distract us from the more important information. For example if we were happy while being attacked, or trying to stalk prey., we would be distracted by the sunlight, the sound of leaves rustling and birds chirping, squirrels flinging themselves from tree to tree, the beautiful adornments your attacker wears, as well as their attempts to feign or intimidate you.


    On a SCIENCE FORUM, the general attitude is focus, and not happiness. If you seek a more balanced discussion, consider religious and pseudoscience forums. Mixing logic an emotion is not very good, they are both useful on their own. It is like trying to use a hammer and a saw at the same time, you will not be able to use either as good as if you took turns; this is why certain ways of doing things evolve.

    Just because we express our cold, calculating unfeeling side on a SCIENCE FORUM, does not mean that this behavior defines us in other aspects of our lives.

    I am here to practice my dialectic, writing and research skills, not to appeal to your cultural ideals.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by dr.syntax

    REPLY: Is the SCIENCE STATE something you would be willing to fight for yourself ? Would you be willing to be an active member of this SCIENCE STATE`S military forces for your entire adult life ? Which country would you take this land from if you had the military might to do so ? Who is going to pay for all this military effort ? NO ONE, that is why it will never happen. ...Dr.Syntax
    First of all, id gladly give my life away if it was for such a cause. Because its not about personal gain, but to further humanitys progress. Science can pay for itself by the simple demand of technology. But to found such a state would require ridicolously amounts of connections, money, resources and more. That is true.

    For this idea to become real, one would have to be extremely rich and influencial or invent/discover something so huge that it would give them enough power to do so. Examples:

    Discovering a way to stop the aging progress
    Discovering a new energy source superior to what we have today
    Discovering a new weapon system vastly improved compared to todays standards

    Todays society is an overpopulated shortsighted stupid pile of organic waste. The inefficent use of our intelligence is wasted on our species as it is today.

    All i wish for is one, just ONE state - that has science as its primary driving force. Where we can live to discover and progress our kind without waste of resources, without lies or meaningless rituals that keep holding us back.

    Some of you would say we would sacrifice our humanity and become machines ourselves in the proccess. But consider the world what it is now...

    Imagine the mindless masses praying
    Imagine the rotting sewer systems below the cities
    Imagine time passing by and people wasting their lifetimes on meaningless endeavours.
    Imagine the rot, death and destruction our parasitic nature and overpopulation do to our planet.

    Our so called "humanity" as it is now is just a fleeting dream.

    In a few hundred years all these societies and the exploding population growth will share eachothers downfall. Its almost inevitable.

    A state of science would attract more of its kind. And probarly be able to achieve means on all fields of science to survive the future. To look upon the world today without becoming a misanthropist is hard, if you see us for what we really are.

    If an alien spacecraft passed the earth i bet the first thought comming to their mind would be "Pathetic"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    DELETED: Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    post deleted, can`t stomach my own tripe . ...DS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    There is an edit button you know, no need to quote twice

    Ive served in the Airforce, Anti-aircraft. Why is this relevant?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Todays society is an overpopulated shortsighted stupid pile of organic waste. The inefficent use of our intelligence is wasted on our species as it is today.

    All i wish for is one, just ONE state - that has science as its primary driving force.
    That was embodied in fascist Germany, and besides it was a broadly popular idea then. Not only the Germans sterilized the inferior. Everybody agreed that governments should be scientific, and organize their nations along rational lines... yes for greater efficiency. You can't argue with that, can you?

    The moral is: You can't argue with reason, but when it tries to push humanity around you can fight it.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    [quote="Raziell"]There is an edit button you know, no need to quote twice ;)

    Ive served in the Airforce, Anti-aircraft. Why is this relevant?[/quote

    posting deleted by DS not pleased with my self for posting such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    post deleted, looked at self, not pleased with what I saw. ...DS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    WHY ON EARTH WOULD THAT BE RELEVENT ? Talking tough is one thing, actually fighting is quite a different thing. You sound FAR too idealistic to have actually been involved in any actual fighting. Just who`s country do you propose should be invaded to create this SCIENCE NATION ? What MOS is AIRFORCE Anti-aircraft anyway. I served in the Marines 0311 rifleman. Don`t tell me fairytails.



    ...DS


    REPLY: I adree the world is pretty crappy. But I sure would not want people such as you running my life or deciding I was simply so much organic waste ready for disposal. You arrogant little twerp. ...DS

    You claim me to be arrogant, you assume that im american, put words in my mouth that id want to rule such a state and slaughter all organic life...

    You sound like the very incarnation of prejudice Syntax.

    Firstly im Norwegian. I signed a document after my service that im under no cirumstance allowed to say what/where or how i served. All i can say is that i was in the airforce, and that my job was anti-air defense.

    One can say overpopulation isnt the blame for crime, poverty, waste of natural resources and so on. But noone can deny its a direct effect of it. To run such a place would require population control, and i merely suggest that parents are to have as many children as they can care for and support. Not mindlessly breed thousands of offspring and strain the system to death.


    Im also not saying id want to rule this place, because i wouldnt be suited for it and i know that. But the necessity of creating such a state is something i thought was obvious to most people.

    Edit: It seems you are thinking this is about me somehow syntax? Its not. Im just provoked at the face of humanity as it is now. Mindless parasites, instead of a world of builders and thinkers. Intelligence is such a great gift, and seing people pray, sloth away their life, being slaves to primal needs, and the inefficency of it all really fills me with despair. Its humanity in general that is arrogant to believe we are more than we are, living in a dream when we can make our reality so much more.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Todays society is an overpopulated shortsighted stupid pile of organic waste. The inefficent use of our intelligence is wasted on our species as it is today.

    All i wish for is one, just ONE state - that has science as its primary driving force.
    That was embodied in fascist Germany, and besides it was a broadly popular idea then. Not only the Germans sterilized the inferior. Everybody agreed that governments should be scientific, and organize their nations along rational lines... yes for greater efficiency. You can't argue with that, can you?

    The moral is: You can't argue with reason, but when it tries to push humanity around you can fight it.
    Inducing population control by healthy rules like limiting number of children that the society can support, and sterilizing people by force - is vastly different. China is allready crushing themselves from overbreeding and induced 1 child per family rule, yet to late.

    Im not suggesting such a place to be driven by facism or extremism. Anyone can leave if they want, anyone can apply to join if they can provide a usefull life with purpose and not a parasitic relationship. Being run from Montesquieus seperation of powers theory with philosophers and scientists would be a good way to run it as a free nation.

    Freethinking would be ssential in such a state, here quoted form wiki:

    Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "The inefficent use of our intelligence is wasted on our species as it is today. "

    ...for example by claiming opinions as scientifically affirmed truths, on a SCIENCE FORUM


    "All i wish for is one, just ONE state - that has science as its primary driving force."

    because abstract concepts are worthy of national reverence

    "Where we can live to discover and progress our kind"
    Under science

    "without waste of resources,"
    except for science

    "without lies or meaningless rituals that keep holding us back."
    just science

    "If an alien spacecraft passed the earth i bet the first thought comming to their mind would be "Pathetic"

    I bet this says more about you than any alien thought. Since pathetic is a subjective value term, why would a proponent of a "science state" use it as something a "science state" should change? Can you objectify "the characteristic of being pathetic?"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Marcus it seems you arent interested in adding ideas or opinions about the whole thing at all. You seem to only care about proving me wrong, fighting me and pick out any error you can find?

    Instead of of making this about me, or you for that matter. Why not come with constructive ideas or viewpoints as to what would be the Pros and cons about such a state and how it should be run?

    I made this thread to put an idea to light for discussion, but there is a difference between constructive criticism and bashing...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That was embodied in fascist Germany, and besides it was a broadly popular idea then. Not only the Germans sterilized the inferior. Everybody agreed that governments should be scientific, and organize their nations along rational lines... yes for greater efficiency. You can't argue with that, can you?
    Inducing population control by healthy rules like limiting number of children that the society can support, and sterilizing people by force - is vastly different.
    Pure coincidence you're in Scandinavia, and I'm in Canada? No. I alluded to other governments because half of my ancestors fled Sweden/Norway in the early century. Honestly, they were superstitious savages, backwards in their time. They had no place in those modern countries. Canada accepted them to fill barren territory as sheep herders.

    Family tradition holds that we were about to be sterilized, was the final impetus. I think that's an exaggeration, but also a simple way of saying we faced socio-economic doom in either country. "Healthy rules" may be less nice to certain demographics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Anyone can leave if they want
    Yeah, thanks. You know the Germans were desperate to ship Jews to new homes? But nobody - not Canada, not America - wanted the Jews. They wouldn't take them as refugees either. So what does one do?


    Alright now let's see if this utopia could work on virgin land. Have you ever heard of Sointula? This was a progressive utopia established on remote British Columbia island, by what I guess you'd call Freethinkers. It didn't collapse under power struggles. It did largely fail simply because it wasn't making any money. The utopian government went bankrupt. Maybe folks spent too much time improving their minds? I don't think the surrounding economy was to blame, because in Sointula's day small industries were sprouting all around it, and a little innovation went a long way.

    You could try again. The region still offers large tracts of coastal land. It's a fascinating prospect.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    partial deletion because I changed my mind about all this. ...DS






    [/quote]

    You claim me to be arrogant, you assume that im american, put words in my mouth that id want to rule such a state and slaughter all organic life...

    You sound like the very incarnation of prejudice Syntax.

    Firstly im Norwegian. I signed a document after my service that im under no cirumstance allowed to say what/where or how i served. All i can say is that i was in the airforce, and that my job was anti-air defense.

    One can say overpopulation isnt the blame for crime, poverty, waste of natural resources and so on. But noone can deny its a direct effect of it. To run such a place would require population control, and i merely suggest that parents are to have as many children as they can care for and support. Not mindlessly breed thousands of offspring and strain the system to death.


    Im also not saying id want to rule this place, because i wouldnt be suited for it and i know that. But the necessity of creating such a state is something i thought was obvious to most people.

    Edit: It seems you are thinking this is about me somehow syntax? Its not. Im just provoked at the face of humanity as it is now. Mindless parasites, instead of a world of builders and thinkers. Intelligence is such a great gift, and seing people pray, sloth away their life, being slaves to primal needs, and the inefficency of it all really fills me with despair. Its humanity in general that is arrogant to believe we are more than we are, living in a dream when we can make our reality so much more.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Todays society is an overpopulated shortsighted stupid pile of organic waste. The inefficent use of our intelligence is wasted on our species as it is today.

    All i wish for is one, just ONE state - that has science as its primary driving force.
    That was embodied in fascist Germany, and besides it was a broadly popular idea then. Not only the Germans sterilized the inferior. Everybody agreed that governments should be scientific, and organize their nations along rational lines... yes for greater efficiency. You can't argue with that, can you?

    The moral is: You can't argue with reason, but when it tries to push humanity around you can fight it.
    Inducing population control by healthy rules like limiting number of children that the society can support, and sterilizing people by force - is vastly different. China is allready crushing themselves from overbreeding and induced 1 child per family rule, yet to late.

    Im not suggesting such a place to be driven by facism or extremism. Anyone can leave if they want, anyone can apply to join if they can provide a usefull life with purpose and not a parasitic relationship. Being run from Montesquieus seperation of powers theory with philosophers and scientists would be a good way to run it as a free nation.

    Freethinking would be ssential in such a state, here quoted form wiki:

    Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.[/quote]

    REPLY: YOU HAVE WON ME OVER. The reason I brought up the military is how else is a Nation going to be created ? All the habitable land is inhabited. In fact as you know much of the World is already overpopulated AND some lands are becoming uninhabitable due to rising ocean levels and desertification. Part of what won me over is that we are in a state of crisis to one degree or another already and it is only going to get worse. But where do we get this land ? Do we invade someone else`s land ? Seems like a VERY, VERY troublesome proposition to me. Even if you succeed initially you end up in the same situation Israel finds itself in today and has been in since it`s inception.
    I am not saying no to the idea, the World seems to be going to shit anyway. Maybe it`s time for some bold action , at least we can go down fighting for something worth fighting for. But how do we justify it amongst ourselves even. This war stuff is a very, very nasty business. I do know. You may come out of it wishing you were dead and killing yourself if you survive the battles. I no longer doubt your courage, I would hate to take part in some bloody affair that failed to achieve it`s goal and then we still would have to live with the consequences of what we had done. It`s been done many times throughout history. People have invaded other people`s land and taken over. The Romans are the best example I can come up with maybe you can think of a better one. In many ways they in fact did improve the lives of many of the peoples they conquered in many ways, PAX ROMANA and all of that. They built roads and sewage systems and on and on. Where do we start from ? Buy some Islands somewhere perhaps. That seems feasible to me. Maybe start with that and see how it goes. Find the ways to govern ourselves and maybe all this war stuff could be avoided altogether. That makes sense. Have like minded people pool their money and buy some Islands somewhere.
    You have won me over, something has to be done to change the course the world is on today.We will at least know we are doing what we can to save our world. Maybe we can buy some Islands and at least set an example for the rest of the World and I think it is a worthy endeavor. I bet we could all have a real hoot trying if nothing else. Similar thinking resulted in the creation of the USA. For it`s time a big improvement. It is still a pretty good Nation that has it`s problems.
    I apologize for doubting your courage. In fact I remember an idealistic young man I once knew who never lacked for courage, he just lost faith in everything as time went by. The fighting itself changed him inside so much he began to live for it alone and hated himself and everyone else except for a few friends he had left and they all just lived to fight and never wanted to go back home. You get that way after a while. Your Freind, ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    [quote="Pong"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That was embodied in fascist Germany, and besides it was a broadly popular idea then. Not only the Germans sterilized the inferior. Everybody agreed that governments should be scientific, and organize their nations along rational lines... yes for greater efficiency. You can't argue with that, can you?
    Inducing population control by healthy rules like limiting number of children that the society can support, and sterilizing people by force - is vastly different.
    Pure coincidence you're in Scandinavia, and I'm in Canada? No. I alluded to other governments because half of my ancestors fled Sweden/Norway in the early century. Honestly, they were superstitious savages, backwards in their time. They had no place in those modern countries. Canada accepted them to fill barren territory as sheep herders.

    Family tradition holds that we were about to be sterilized, was the final impetus. I think that's an exaggeration, but also a simple way of saying we faced socio-economic doom in either country. "Healthy rules" may be less nice to certain demographics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Anyone can leave if they want
    Yeah, thanks. You know the Germans were desperate to ship Jews to new homes? But nobody - not Canada, not America - wanted the Jews. They wouldn't take them as refugees either. So what does one do?


    Alright now let's see if this utopia could work on virgin land. Have you ever heard of Sointula? This was a progressive utopia established on remote British Columbia island, by what I guess you'd call Freethinkers. It didn't collapse under power struggles. It did largely fail simply because it wasn't making any money. The utopian government went bankrupt. Maybe folks spent too much time improving their minds? I don't think the surrounding economy was to blame, because in Sointula's day small industries were sprouting all around it, and a little innovation went a long way.

    You could try again. The region still offers large tracts of coastal land. It's a fascinating prospect.[/quote


    REPLY: Hello Pong, So you know of some large tracts of land for sale of British Colombia. Maybe this is the place to start with then. I imagine we would be living under the laws and such of Canada, is this correct ? Canada is a very progressive Country from what I know of it. Would we have to become Canadian Citizens to buy this land or not ? The Canadians are pretty strict about immigration. I am not trying to be negative. I am trying to learn what sort of obstacles we would be up against in even buying this land. The climate is pretty good there. A bit cold and rainy but no worse than places I have lived like Upstate New York. The rain and snowfalls in the particular area I lived in there are the worst East of the Mississippi. They have what is called THE LAKE EFFCT. Anyway this area seems feasable. I have some money and I would suggest at least in the beginning some equitable arrangement would have to be worked out. What I am suggesting is that anyone desiring to join this endeavor would be required to literally buy into it. It cannot become some haven for freeloaders or it would surely fail and quickly.
    Another option just occured to me. There are the people known as the Amish that live here in America who live lives according to their own rules and ehtics within the laws of the USA and the different States they live in.
    It is an option. There is a lot of land available in Upstate New York for not a lot of money. Because all the industries that once supported that area are gone the land can be had quite reasonably. I bought a 3 bedroom home on over 10 acres of land for $37,000. It has a large double garage also. It is a bit run down but is restoreable. Not all that bad really. I live there off and on. There are lots of homes and land for sale in that area for not very much really. It`s a thought. The Amish are moving into this particular area but are all very fine People in my opinion. There are many simular areas throughout New York State. It is not an ideal location but what is ? The area itself is of incredible natural beauty. Lakes and forrests and rolling hills abound. Every turn along some roads offers some new wonderous vista. It`s a little red neckie around there but I have learned to get along with most of these people just fine and have some real friends I appreciate very much.
    I am just throwing out another option to consider. I am not saying it is the best one. I do know the USA`s immigration policies are far more lax than Canada`s. Life is all too short. If some of you are truly serious about all this you can count me amongst you if you think I am good enough. I know I am. And my skills as a Primal Therapist [ though I am not a certified one ] are considerable. I have been at it for over 37 years now and am able to achieve the desired results with many I have worked with. I have the money to pay my way. I have a lot of expertise in dealing antiques and fine art. I know the business and have contacts in the Boston area and all that would be required to make some in New York City is put together a batch of the good stuff and drive in to some auction house there and put the stuff up for sale and you now have a contact. There are a lot of pitfalls in all this but I did it successfully for over 25 years. It`s a way to make money if you know what you are doing. And the Northeast is probably the richest source of quality antiques and fine art in the USA.
    So though I lack a formal education, I more than make up for in Life Skills.
    I don`t know,how serious are any of us in trying this endeavor ? I am fed up with myself for just bitching about how the world is going to shit and not doing anything real to change it. I have changed my attitude about this proposed endeavor and am at a point in my life where I want to do something real to save the World we live in from the forces of insanity that control so much of what goes on. I think it`s worth a try. I move all the time anyway so moving to some proposed realistic location is not a problem. How many of us are there that are willing to commit to this endeavor ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Who is willing to commit to creating a STATE OF SCIENCE ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Forum member Raziel has proposed that a Nation be created founded on the principles of science. That science and real answers to real problems shall guide this new Nation.
    There is a lively discussion he created in this General Discussion section of this forum. It is titled : Why does`t science have it`s own state. Here is a link to this lively debate : [ http://www.thescienceforum.com/Why-d...ate-21443t.php ]. Please take the time to at least read Raziel`s opening remarks. I, Dr.Syntax was at first quite skeptical of this proposal, but Raziel and others have won me over and I know it is doable in some way or another. Pong has pointed out there are large tracts of land, Islands off the Coast of British Columbia that are for sale perhaps. I have pointed out there is much land available for short money in Upstate New York for another option and I am sure there are others. Just what this New Science State would be is being debated there right now.
    For others out there who are tired of simply complaining about the sorry state of our world and wish to do something very real about it like I do please give Raziel`s proposal some careful consideration.
    I myself, Dr.Syntax am ready to commit myself to making this happen. I am going to create a poll asking all amongst us who are willing to commit to this endeavor to vote in the poll I create and post a message to that effect in this thread. We who are interested in undertaking this endeavor have to start somewhere and why not here and now and see what we can do to make this happen. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    Best thing is to get rid of people who want their own country ...

    REPLY: Well I, Dr.Syntax am one of these people. What do you mean when you say " GET RID OF PEOPLE WHO WANT THEIR OWN COUNTRY ". Should I be taken out and shot at dawn or put in prison ? What exactly do you mean. Don`t you think you were being a bit harsh in your judgment of people such as me. I know I at times say things I regret and retract my statements after giving them some more thought. Please do this my friend, Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Purushothama
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    If i got to chose a country to be born into if i was given the hypothetical option for a reincarnation id say "None, cause the country i want isnt founded yet" and that is a state based on science and truth.
    Science has not yet grown strong enough to rule people. Science may have grown to whatever extent, but it is still a stupid fly in front of a giant elephant of beliefs and faith in religion, culture and region.

    In other words, the faith is so strong in people about their religion and their region that science has never been able to eliminate this, but in fact faith has widely utilized the science and unfortunately all scientists involve in it. I do not think there is any necessary to explain where and how science has been utilized for the sake of faith.

    So the faith is capable of rule the people as well as the science and science is the slave.

    Never imagine there may be a society ruled by pure science.


    REPLY: It is not a stupid fly facing the elephant but an intelligent man. Yes, since it is religion that this elephant represents in your analogy it is time mankind turned it`s back on it and simply walks away. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Your pretty cold, you assume because someone doesn't express themselves well, they are cold, and all these other stereotypical characteristics. Maybe some of us have some degree of autism, or some other difficulty in expressing ourselves. Maybe we are from a different culture than yours, and you simply don't understand our expressions. We all come from different environments, and learn different ways to express ourselves, some are better at being understood than others, some recognize the usefulness of learning multiple ways to communicate... for example, should a how to manual be written as a series of haiku? should a love letter be written in the form of a dictionary?

    What you perceive as negative things(coldness, calculation, apathy), helps us to focus(hence calculation is involved). It is a psychological observance. Happiness helps us take in more information, but this can distract us from the more important information. For example if we were happy while being attacked, or trying to stalk prey., we would be distracted by the sunlight, the sound of leaves rustling and birds chirping, squirrels flinging themselves from tree to tree, the beautiful adornments your attacker wears, as well as their attempts to feign or intimidate you.


    On a SCIENCE FORUM, the general attitude is focus, and not happiness. If you seek a more balanced discussion, consider religious and pseudoscience forums. Mixing logic an emotion is not very good, they are both useful on their own. It is like trying to use a hammer and a saw at the same time, you will not be able to use either as good as if you took turns; this is why certain ways of doing things evolve.

    Just because we express our cold, calculating unfeeling side on a SCIENCE FORUM, does not mean that this behavior defines us in other aspects of our lives.

    I am here to practice my dialectic, writing and research skills, not to appeal to your cultural ideals.

    REPLY: Please stop with these suggestions that I turn to religion and psuedoscience. I do not deserve that from you or anyone else. I have clearly stated I have no religious beliefs or beliefs in psuedoscience. Is that not meant as a not so subtle insult to me ? I do feel a certain minority of scientists appear to me to take some perverse pride in being unfeeling and detached. I see no virtue in this. None. Now that you got me going I will tell you exactly what I see in this sort of behavior. Some unloved child that was forced to TRY AND DENY all the pain and misery that lives inside him. Always there pressing forth for resolution. It is called a defense mechanism. Just one of the many ways unloved children are forced to cope with the pain that lives within them. I have explained the answer to this condition and that answer is available to all who dare to feel this pain and misery. It is so much better to free one`s self from all this repressed misery than to spend one`s lifetime coping with it , the choice is clear in my mind, feel it and be done with it. The pride many take in their defense mechanisms never surprises me. It is a common phenomenon. In fact it is characteristic of almost all neurotics. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    WHY ON EARTH WOULD THAT BE RELEVENT ? Talking tough is one thing, actually fighting is quite a different thing. You sound FAR too idealistic to have actually been involved in any actual fighting. Just who`s country do you propose should be invaded to create this SCIENCE NATION ? What MOS is AIRFORCE Anti-aircraft anyway. I served in the Marines 0311 rifleman. Don`t tell me fairytails.



    ...DS


    REPLY: I adree the world is pretty crappy. But I sure would not want people such as you running my life or deciding I was simply so much organic waste ready for disposal. You arrogant little twerp. ...DS

    You claim me to be arrogant, you assume that im american, put words in my mouth that id want to rule such a state and slaughter all organic life...

    You sound like the very incarnation of prejudice Syntax.

    Firstly im Norwegian. I signed a document after my service that im under no cirumstance allowed to say what/where or how i served. All i can say is that i was in the airforce, and that my job was anti-air defense.

    One can say overpopulation isnt the blame for crime, poverty, waste of natural resources and so on. But noone can deny its a direct effect of it. To run such a place would require population control, and i merely suggest that parents are to have as many children as they can care for and support. Not mindlessly breed thousands of offspring and strain the system to death.


    Im also not saying id want to rule this place, because i wouldnt be suited for it and i know that. But the necessity of creating such a state is something i thought was obvious to most people.

    Edit: It seems you are thinking this is about me somehow syntax? Its not. Im just provoked at the face of humanity as it is now. Mindless parasites, instead of a world of builders and thinkers. Intelligence is such a great gift, and seing people pray, sloth away their life, being slaves to primal needs, and the inefficency of it all really fills me with despair. Its humanity in general that is arrogant to believe we are more than we are, living in a dream when we can make our reality so much more.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Todays society is an overpopulated shortsighted stupid pile of organic waste. The inefficent use of our intelligence is wasted on our species as it is today.

    All i wish for is one, just ONE state - that has science as its primary driving force.
    That was embodied in fascist Germany, and besides it was a broadly popular idea then. Not only the Germans sterilized the inferior. Everybody agreed that governments should be scientific, and organize their nations along rational lines... yes for greater efficiency. You can't argue with that, can you?

    The moral is: You can't argue with reason, but when it tries to push humanity around you can fight it.
    Inducing population control by healthy rules like limiting number of children that the society can support, and sterilizing people by force - is vastly different. China is allready crushing themselves from overbreeding and induced 1 child per family rule, yet to late.

    Im not suggesting such a place to be driven by facism or extremism. Anyone can leave if they want, anyone can apply to join if they can provide a usefull life with purpose and not a parasitic relationship. Being run from Montesquieus seperation of powers theory with philosophers and scientists would be a good way to run it as a free nation.

    Freethinking would be ssential in such a state, here quoted form wiki:

    Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.

    REPLY: I owe you more than one apology. I am sorry for every arrogant stupid remark I made to you. I am sorry and ask you for your forgiveness. You, and Pong have turned me around on this issue. I now embrace your idea and will do what I can to support it. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    [/quote]

    You claim me to be arrogant, you assume that im american, put words in my mouth that id want to rule such a state and slaughter all organic life...

    You sound like the very incarnation of prejudice Syntax.

    Firstly im Norwegian. I signed a document after my service that im under no cirumstance allowed to say what/where or how i served. All i can say is that i was in the airforce, and that my job was anti-air defense.

    One can say overpopulation isnt the blame for crime, poverty, waste of natural resources and so on. But noone can deny its a direct effect of it. To run such a place would require population control, and i merely suggest that parents are to have as many children as they can care for and support. Not mindlessly breed thousands of offspring and strain the system to death.


    Im also not saying id want to rule this place, because i wouldnt be suited for it and i know that. But the necessity of creating such a state is something i thought was obvious to most people.

    Edit: It seems you are thinking this is about me somehow syntax? Its not. Im just provoked at the face of humanity as it is now. Mindless parasites, instead of a world of builders and thinkers. Intelligence is such a great gift, and seing people pray, sloth away their life, being slaves to primal needs, and the inefficency of it all really fills me with despair. Its humanity in general that is arrogant to believe we are more than we are, living in a dream when we can make our reality so much more.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Todays society is an overpopulated shortsighted stupid pile of organic waste. The inefficent use of our intelligence is wasted on our species as it is today.

    All i wish for is one, just ONE state - that has science as its primary driving force.
    That was embodied in fascist Germany, and besides it was a broadly popular idea then. Not only the Germans sterilized the inferior. Everybody agreed that governments should be scientific, and organize their nations along rational lines... yes for greater efficiency. You can't argue with that, can you?

    The moral is: You can't argue with reason, but when it tries to push humanity around you can fight it.
    Inducing population control by healthy rules like limiting number of children that the society can support, and sterilizing people by force - is vastly different. China is allready crushing themselves from overbreeding and induced 1 child per family rule, yet to late.

    Im not suggesting such a place to be driven by facism or extremism. Anyone can leave if they want, anyone can apply to join if they can provide a usefull life with purpose and not a parasitic relationship. Being run from Montesquieus seperation of powers theory with philosophers and scientists would be a good way to run it as a free nation.

    Freethinking would be ssential in such a state, here quoted form wiki:

    Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.[/quote]


    REPLY: HOW VERY SORRY I TRULY AM. Please forgive me. I was the arrogant fool you say I was. I have rethought this entire matter and am a supporter of this endeavor you propose. I am trying to delete the worst of it. I find these quotes all over this thread and am ashamed of myself for what I said. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39 bold propasal made in forum warrants consideration 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Raziell has proposed that a Nation of some sort based on science and reason be created. I, Dr.Syntax, along with others were quick to crap on his proposal. He and pong have turned me around on this issue. I feel he is on to something important. Why is it so many of us are so quick to stomp on anything we did not dream up and is new and innovative.
    An automatic response on our part to what ? Reinforce our tired old ideas about the world. I am disgusted with myself for my tired old reaction to a young man`s bold proposal for a means of bettering his world and ours.
    I am personally disgusted with myself for acting the old KNOW IT ALL. The world we live in is alreading selfdestructing. The tired old answers are not working. We know it alls don`t know shit from shinola, we are just are so very sure that we do.
    I am sure most of us older ones here in the forum do not have what it takes to uproot our comfortable tired old lives to embrace his idea and actually do anything beyond blathering amongst ourselves about this that and another thing. But this old man is getting behind this young man`s idea and will do what I can to make it happen because I feel like it and am ready to do something to try and save the world we live in`s slide into madness and disaster. Please read Raziell`s proposal at : [ http://www.thescienceforum.com/Why-d...ate-21443t.php ]. I am not asking anyone to uproot their lives. Just give some positive feedback on just how this endeavor could be achieved. And you younger members might consider becoming a part of this endeavor.
    He has gotten plenty of the usual tired old crap, but if that is what you have to add to the discussion, well do that which you will. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    stupid question
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    stupid question

    REPLY: Gee, glad to hear from you FREETHINKER. ...DS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    It has always bothered me why religion has its own state, countries have their own states based on geography. The jews have israel, a state for their people and their religion. And now i read that islam wants their own state aswell.


    Why isnt there a single state on earth for science?

    There is a Latin saying that goes "Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?"

    In my opinion humanity cant progress before we toss these old foolish traditions and lies, cultures and religions aside. Is there something to it - that the smart and wise simply dont wish to rule? And those who do wish to rule do it for their own gain only?

    Men of great knowledge and intellect through time has in most cases always seemed to never wish to rule. What if science had its own state?

    What power and growth such a place would be, what a utopia of knowledge and understanding it could become. Yet all these shortsighted fairytale lovers seem to bind together just fine (thinking of religious people in general)

    Why is it so hard for the smartest elite of humanity to make their own state and leave the idiots to fend for themselves? By idiots i mean people that dont care about progress, dont care about the future, dont care about wanting to know the truth and so on.

    If i got to chose a country to be born into if i was given the hypothetical option for a reincarnation id say "None, cause the country i want isnt founded yet" and that is a state based on science and truth.
    REPLY: Perhaps what we should be considering as an achievable goal is something more in line with what the Amish have done for themselves here in America. They have a Nation wide group of like minded people who are committed to certain principals and live there lives accordingly.
    The big difference would those beliefs we adhere to. Ours being based on science and reality whereas theirs are based on religious beliefs. I think this would be an acheivable goal. After all, they did do it and manage to hold true to their beliefs.
    It dispells with what I percieve to be unsurmountable obstacles. The creation of a new Nation could result in a military conflict we could not win and would be anethma to everything we stood for. That is the way I see it.
    Also, this Amish way of life is such that the individuals own there own properties which would dispel with any issues regarding the different members financial investment in this endeavor. I see the Amish as a successful group who share common goals and such and are there for each other and accomplish group efforts. A realistic starting point perhaps.
    To create an actual new Nation seems unrealistic to me, unless it was carefully worked towards over a long period of time. I think what I am proposing is actually doable. My goodness, we would not want any sort of armed conflict. Some dickhead like me might join such an effort just for laughs but you won`t find many and the ones you found you would not like very much I expect. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Thats some enthusiam syntax

    The problem with idealistic ideas like this is that:

    1) To make them reality is not just hard but almost impossible. We would need not only very good connections, but large amounts of money. And when i say large im not talking about just some millions.

    2) The line between genious and madman is thin. Though the idea is pure, many tragedies in history started out this way aswell. Untill they started to commit any means to an end. And even if they got what they wanted in the end what would they have to sacrifice to get there? This is something to be considered.

    3) Logistics infrastructure and personell. It would need lots of people, not only payed ones - but people that believe in it - to make it succeed. You would need builders, farmers, doctors and so on. The things we take for granted in todays society would also need to be there. The diversity of our kind is great - and vital for a functioning society of any kind.

    This is just scratching the surface... you dont just go "HEY GUYS LETS MAKE A COUNTRY =)"


    The number of obstacles is long that the support needed for it to become reality is astronomical. But one thing make me have hope, and that is the NEED for such a state when i look on what the world is today with the knowledge of what grand changes we have made in the past - things that started as an idea aswell.

    Many people wont take a thread like this serious at all but we all have to start somewhere. Even if its just an idea. My wish is to build a world anyone would want to be born into.

    I only fear people wont realize this before its to late. We have hatefull people out there that dont care about anything, and we have caring and loving people aswell. What do these kinds of people both have in common? They are both self destructive. The far negative part will destroy us with action, the far positive/caring part will kill us with inaction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Instead of of making this about me,
    You are making it about you("it" referring to our meta discussion) when I was clearly talking about what you said, and not you. I'll address my motivation last.

    Why not come with constructive ideas or viewpoints as to what would be the Pros and cons about such a state and how it should be run?
    because nobody has really defined what the state is, everyone is forced to assume

    since it is literally impossible that science rules over people, i assume that the state will be ruled by people who herald scientific theories, no?

    without knowing any details of the state: I would expect it to be like most nations, a wonderful failure with great peaks and miserable valleys, and overall: a beautiful learning experience. Something I would rather study than be a part of.

    I made this thread to put an idea to light for discussion, but there is a difference between constructive criticism and bashing...
    I commented on what you said in my previous post, in the manner I did, because what you said sounded to me like political propaganda. If I'm wrong, please define your value terms, support your claims, and then I'll eat my words and offer my apology.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Thats some enthusiam syntax :)

    The problem with idealistic ideas like this is that:

    1) To make them reality is not just hard but almost impossible. We would need not only very good connections, but large amounts of money. And when i say large im not talking about just some millions.

    2) The line between genious and madman is thin. Though the idea is pure, many tragedies in history started out this way aswell. Untill they started to commit any means to an end. And even if they got what they wanted in the end what would they have to sacrifice to get there? This is something to be considered.

    3) Logistics infrastructure and personell. It would need lots of people, not only payed ones - but people that believe in it - to make it succeed. You would need builders, farmers, doctors and so on. The things we take for granted in todays society would also need to be there. The diversity of our kind is great - and vital for a functioning society of any kind.

    This is just scratching the surface... you dont just go "HEY GUYS LETS MAKE A COUNTRY =)"


    The number of obstacles is long that the support needed for it to become reality is astronomical. But one thing make me have hope, and that is the NEED for such a state when i look on what the world is today with the knowledge of what grand changes we have made in the past - things that started as an idea aswell.

    Many people wont take a thread like this serious at all but we all have to start somewhere. Even if its just an idea. My wish is to build a world anyone would want to be born into.

    I only fear people wont realize this before its to late. We have hatefull people out there that dont care about anything, and we have caring and loving people aswell. What do these kinds of people both have in common? They are both self destructive. The far negative part will destroy us with action, the far positive/caring part will kill us with inaction.

    REPLY: I really am one of those caring and loving people. Please do read my post in your thread about the Amish experience in America. I do not think it is possible to create a new Nation in even 20 years. But you can start with something like what the Amish have done and build from that. There is no way in hell you can take over anyone else`s Country. And what sort of Nation would be created if you did ? The American Revolution lasted about 10 years and barely made it. THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TODAY. START WITH something akin to the Amish and build from that. I don`t know, maybe buying those islands off BC could be done, but you would still be Canadians. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I think that the scientific community has more benefits as it is today, a scattered network of smaller communities. Unity is not all it's cracked up to be, since we are still rather savage creatures, practicing despotic tactics and competing amongst eachother for resources when there are plenty to go around.

    This is why I said, and believe, that the ideal scientific organization would be anarchistic. In a way that is what it is, without ever having to declare "ANARCHY!" from smoldering ruins of tradition... for the scientific community there are no borders, and it is stronger, more objective, and less limited because of it.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I think that the scientific community has more benefits as it is today, a scattered network of smaller communities. Unity is not all it's cracked up to be, since we are still rather savage creatures, practicing despotic tactics and competing amongst eachother for resources when there are plenty to go around.

    This is why I said, and believe, that the ideal scientific organization would be anarchistic. In a way that is what it is, without ever having to declare "ANARCHY!" from smoldering ruins of tradition... for the scientific community there are no borders, and it is stronger, more objective, and less limited because of it.


    REPLY: I am sorry to disagree with once again. For selfish reasons I am sorry. I do not want to create animosity between us for my sake. Never the less I do disagree.
    Science for science sake with no guidance is on the verge of destroying our species. The Technological Singularity in and of itself alone may very well be the end of us all. This is not science fiction. In one form or another it will happen.
    The very best scientists of the 20th century saw this coming at us. John Von Neumann, a man who makes Einstein rather ordinary when the two are compared saw this coming back in 1958. A conversation between him and Stanislaw Ulman, a pre-eminent scientst in his own right discussed this very issue at that time [ 1958 ]. If you do not know who they are both were primary scientists in the MANHATTAN PROJECT. Ulman went on to make crucial scientific breakthroughs regarding nuclear fusion tech, bombs. When you read their biographies even these scientific accomplishments seem not all that difficult. Both mathematical masters that make Einstein`s abilities seem puny. Did you ever know of them until now ? So, you might imagine, considering the sorts of things they played a big role in creating they had cocerns about where all these tech advances leading and discussed them. I could go on and on. I see it as pointless. You think of scientific discovery as some sort of ultimate goal in and of itself with no regard for the consequences . Scientific Anarchy. Do you take pride in that. And was it not you made some remark to me to the effect that you had never killed anyone such as I had was implied. Am I mistaken about that ? Well think about this. I killed a lot of men. They were doing everthing they could to kill me. I was almost killed one time, I mean hit with with autmatic rifle fire at very close range in the abdomen and looking at me guts hanging out my back. Things like bullets buzzing about my ears and coming under artillery barrages do not count as being almost killed. That sort of crap happened all the time and did not mean shit to me or the men I served with. We were the 9th Marines and killing dinks was our job. These were ALL, WELL ARMED NVA SOLDIERS. We never saw civilians and NO REPORTERS and such DARED to travel with us. Where we went people died. Sometimes on a daily basis and in very large numbers at times. People when hit with machine gun fire have their heads explode,get cut in two,arms and legs are gone in an instant. That is the kind of fighting I took part in. I don`t want to tell you anymoe. ...DS ....Post scipt: I got lost in my feelings and had to stop posting. All that happened a long time ago. I also have a lot of experience as a primal therapy person. Aftter as many years [ over 35 ] as I have being a primal therapy person it is clear to me that you have a defense system built upon pretending you have no feelings. It is a lie and you know it. IF YOU WERE A PERSON I WAS TRYING TO HELP: I would tell you, it`s OK to feel. Only you know what you feel. I am here to be with you so that you can allow yourself to feel. I , myself just let my feelings emerge from inside me as they will. I never know where they will take me. At times it is a very delicate process. Especially when these feelings first begin emerging into my conscious mind. I may say to myself I can take it, whatever it is I can feel it. About now I may begin crying. You just let yourself go with the feeling. You give into it and allow your feelings to happen. It`s a delicate process. But once you get the hang of it, it is not so difficult. You just go with it and allow it to happen. You can`t force it to happen. If you lose the feeling, so what. Maybe you were not ready take it any further. You can not force tourself to feel. I just sense a very sad, empty man, child in you, who never got much of the parental love you needed.
    I know I am a bit of a rowdy and such. These are my defense mechanisms. Take Care, ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    It has always bothered me why religion has its own state, countries have their own states based on geography. The jews have israel, a state for their people and their religion. And now i read that islam wants their own state aswell.


    Why isnt there a single state on earth for science?

    There is a Latin saying that goes "Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?"

    In my opinion humanity cant progress before we toss these old foolish traditions and lies, cultures and religions aside. Is there something to it - that the smart and wise simply dont wish to rule? And those who do wish to rule do it for their own gain only?

    Men of great knowledge and intellect through time has in most cases always seemed to never wish to rule. What if science had its own state?

    What power and growth such a place would be, what a utopia of knowledge and understanding it could become. Yet all these shortsighted fairytale lovers seem to bind together just fine (thinking of religious people in general)

    Why is it so hard for the smartest elite of humanity to make their own state and leave the idiots to fend for themselves? By idiots i mean people that dont care about progress, dont care about the future, dont care about wanting to know the truth and so on.

    If i got to chose a country to be born into if i was given the hypothetical option for a reincarnation id say "None, cause the country i want isnt founded yet" and that is a state based on science and truth.

    REPLY: I am starting to feel that you were just tossing this out as an idea and that I took it all to seriously. If I am wrong about that say so. I feel once again I have made a fool of myself. I am sorry that I took this all to seriously. Oh well, nothing new about that. Whatever, ,,,DS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "Science for science sake with no guidance is on the verge of destroying our species."

    Where is the "science for science sake?"

    AI is not merely an experiment to help us understand things better, but is also R&D to help developers make money.

    I think the majority of scientists are not so for sciences sake, but scientists for their own sake, even if they say otherwise. Propaganda runs deep in all walks of life, and it's up to each to protect their own niche.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    "Science for science sake with no guidance is on the verge of destroying our species."

    Where is the "science for science sake?"

    AI is not merely an experiment to help us understand things better, but is also R&D to help developers make money.

    I think the majority of scientists are not so for sciences sake, but scientists for their own sake, even if they say otherwise. Propaganda runs deep in all walks of life, and it's up to each to protect their own niche.
    REPLY: I know you are right about that. The almighty dollar. More than that all technologically advanced countries are absolutely compelled to compete with each other to be the first to achieve AI. The winner potentially will have the big edge in tech.. I have read all about it and am convinced this is the way it is. We agree on this my friend. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Then why do you say that science for science sake is on the verge of destroying the world, and use AI to support this claim? Even though you agree that AI is not science for science sake... I'm confused, please elucidate.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Then why do you say that science for science sake is on the verge of destroying the world, and use AI to support this claim? Even though you agree that AI is not science for science sake... I'm confused, please elucidate.

    Reply: THE TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY is an inevitable reality that is inevitable. There is no question in my my mind that it will happen. NONE. Marcus, what is left to explain sir ? The TECH. NATIONS AND PRIVATE ENTITIES ARE ABSOLUTELY COMPELLED: To be the first to achieve AI in whatever form iy takes. So, therefore it is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER, what I feel or think about this inevitable event. That is what I am saying sir. Your Friend, ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: Why doesent science have its own state? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    It has always bothered me why religion has its own state, countries have their own states based on geography. The jews have israel, a state for their people and their religion. And now i read that islam wants their own state aswell.


    Why isnt there a single state on earth for science?

    There is a Latin saying that goes "Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?"

    In my opinion humanity cant progress before we toss these old foolish traditions and lies, cultures and religions aside. Is there something to it - that the smart and wise simply dont wish to rule? And those who do wish to rule do it for their own gain only?

    Men of great knowledge and intellect through time has in most cases always seemed to never wish to rule. What if science had its own state?

    What power and growth such a place would be, what a utopia of knowledge and understanding it could become. Yet all these shortsighted fairytale lovers seem to bind together just fine (thinking of religious people in general)

    Why is it so hard for the smartest elite of humanity to make their own state and leave the idiots to fend for themselves? By idiots i mean people that dont care about progress, dont care about the future, dont care about wanting to know the truth and so on.

    If i got to chose a country to be born into if i was given the hypothetical option for a reincarnation id say "None, cause the country i want isnt founded yet" and that is a state based on science and truth.

    I no longer care. It was a wishful fantasy in my opinion and nothing more than that. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Sir you are contradicting yourself, I don't want to be rude, but you will have to tolerate a certain degree of frustration as I suffer from massive brain hemorrhages. maybe I'm missing something, let us recap-

    In one post you said the equivalent that "science for science sake will destroy us" and then the next sentence in the same post you say something like "the technological singularity will destroy us"

    I assumed you were using the second statement as evidence for the first; implying that the technological singularity is the result of "science for science."

    So I pointed out that it had other motivations, not just "for science"(whatever that means)

    Then when you agree with me that AI is not the result of science for science, I became quite confused. When I asked you for examples of science for science's sake, you went on to explain something quite irrelevant. Now I'm completely bewildered.

    Please, if you can, point out what I've missed, and provide some examples of science for sciences sake, as I'm not so sure there is any such thing, but in the minds of idealists.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55 Hello Marcus... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Sir you are contradicting yourself, I don't want to be rude, but you will have to tolerate a certain degree of frustration as I suffer from massive brain hemorrhages. maybe I'm missing something, let us recap-

    In one post you said the equivalent that "science for science sake will destroy us" and then the next sentence in the same post you say something like "the technological singularity will destroy us"

    I assumed you were using the second statement as evidence for the first; implying that the technological singularity is the result of "science for science."

    So I pointed out that it had other motivations, not just "for science"(whatever that means)

    Then when you agree with me that AI is not the result of science for science, I became quite confused. When I asked you for examples of science for science's sake, you went on to explain something quite irrelevant. Now I'm completely bewildered.

    Please, if you can, point out what I've missed, and provide some examples of science for sciences sake, as I'm not so sure there is any such thing, but in the minds of idealists.

    REPLY: Hello Marcus, I apologize for any confusion about any of this. I am SURE that is the result of my own confusion. regarding all this. The ONLY thing I am capable of doing is giving is an attempt to describe my feelings regarding regarding this issue. I have mixed feelings about this whole issue and admit to contradictory statements. You are correct about that.
    I think the only thing I am clear in my own mind about it all is the inevititability of it. Marcus, this is something none of us can avoid in my opinion. Therefore why worry about it.
    A wonderful event occurred for me last night I hope. I met perhaps the most beautiful woman I ever met, to take a serious interest in me. Hear me out, it is relevent to this issue.
    Anyway, I proposed to her that we embark upon a hedonistic adventure in so many words and she wants to do it with me. or so she said last night. I, of course will be putting out the money for this endevour. I am 60 years old after all , but we did have a very pleasant night together and I wore her out ' She seemed very enthusiastic about it all. This is the sort of woman I would happily spend $ 50,000 for 6 months of the PLEASURE OF HER COMPANY. Doing whatever she wants wherever she wants to do it and told her just that. I consider her worthy of creating a new Syntax with ,if it comes to that.
    She is that beautiful and has the required instincts. A real gem of a gal and at my age. I always wanted a son to carry on the lineage.
    What does this have to do with this thread ? Get out there and live while you can. As always, the world is screwed up, yet we want to live. ...Dr.Syntax
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •