• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Howitzer

Story: Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Cpt. Obvious said:
19 hours ago, WillikaKillika said:

What's wrong with three dragons?

It would have made the total dragon population four and like Dan said, why on Earth would you summon four dragons when you could have five?

Everybody knows that if you want to summon three dragons, you summon one on Earth, one in Air and one underground ... or maybe under the sea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

Everybody knows that if you want to summon three dragons, you summon one on Earth, one in Air and one underground ... or maybe under the sea?

I'm just relieved that Pandora doesn't want to "destroy the world" with Magic anymore, that could have the potential of releasing the eight legendary dragons. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

That's be a total mess, they'd break into at least two political parties...It would be the end of the world.

From what I've seen and heard of the world, having at least two political parties beats the heck out of having only one....but Ithink pursuing this line of thought any further would require moving the discussion to the Politics thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:
1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

That's be a total mess, they'd break into at least two political parties...It would be the end of the world.

From what I've seen and heard of the world, having at least two political parties beats the heck out of having only one....but Ithink pursuing this line of thought any further would require moving the discussion to the Politics thread.

I'm not sure TWO is enough, looking at current election in US. But that doesn't mean that ZERO is bad. Zero might actually work more like infinity and be therefore better than any finite number. Even for humans, not speaking about dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Humans like grouping up way too much to ever do away with political parties...

Robotics can change that. Most humans don't want peers, they want subordinates. We only experiment with democracy because we are unable to agree on reasonable leader and clear hierarchy: noone wants to be at bottom and too many wants to be on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Most humans don't want peers, they want subordinates. We only experiment with democracy because we are unable to agree on reasonable leader and clear hierarchy: noone wants to be at bottom and too many wants to be on top.

Speak for yourself!  If we don't want peers then why do we tend to gather in groups with people who are good at and enjoy the same things we do?  Why would someone smart go out of their way to join Mensa to find others equally smart and to be in a Gathering where they are completely ordinary, instead of just joining a more conventional group where they could always be the smartest person in the room?  Why would so many people have fought so hard, suffered and sacrificed and died, in order to free slaves and end Jim Crow, even though every Freedom Ride bus was half-filled with people who were white and thus would only lose relative status by your theory?  Why would we have expressions like "A rising tide lifts all boats" and have the concept that society is not a Zero Sum Game?

I'm glad I live in my world and not the one you describe, which would be a very depressing place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Most humans don't want peers, they want subordinates. We only experiment with democracy because we are unable to agree on reasonable leader and clear hierarchy: noone wants to be at bottom and too many wants to be on top.

Speak for yourself!  If we don't want peers then why do we tend to gather in groups with people who are good at and enjoy the same things we do?  Why would someone smart go out of their way to join Mensa to find others equally smart and to be in a Gathering where they are completely ordinary, instead of just joining a more conventional group where they could always be the smartest person in the room?  Why would so many people have fought so hard, suffered and sacrificed and died, in order to free slaves and end Jim Crow, even though every Freedom Ride bus was half-filled with people who were white and thus would only lose relative status by your theory?  Why would we have expressions like "A rising tide lifts all boats" and have the concept that society is not a Zero Sum Game?

I'm glad I live in my world and not the one you describe, which would be a very depressing place.

The problem is, both worlds technically exist simultaneously, and unfortunatly the one hkmaly describes gets the most media attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Robotics can change that. Most humans don't want peers, they want subordinates. We only experiment with democracy because we are unable to agree on reasonable leader and clear hierarchy: noone wants to be at bottom and too many wants to be on top.

Humans are simply too social for Solaria to be a viable future, IMHO. 

Too many people are always trying to be at the top.  This is nothing new.  That's just the normal human instinct to establish a pecking order combined with wanting the the most toys. 

OTOH, Have you seen what happens to a group when nobody wants to lead?  It ain't pretty.  I don't remember if it's a Larry Niven observation on writer's collaborations or one of Niven's Laws for Writers.  "Someone has to be the dictator". 

A Republic is a way to have the dictators and get rid of them when needed.  Naturally the dictators will try to wire the system to keep that from happening, which is where but the US, Europe and related states are right now.  Democracies and Republics work best when the powerful are subject to being removed from power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Humans are simply too social for Solaria to be a viable future, IMHO. 

Having read the summary of the idea, I have to agree.  Humans have a basic need for contact, especially as they mature.  A planet where every human lived their whole life without contact with another human would be a planet of severely deranged people who would likely be very difficult for the robots to keep alive long enough for another generation, even with artificial help.

53 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

OTOH, Have you seen what happens to a group when nobody wants to lead?  It ain't pretty.  I don't remember if it's a Larry Niven observation on writer's collaborations or one of Niven's Laws for Writers.  "Someone has to be the dictator". 

My mom ends up an officer in just about every club she joins, simply because no one else is willing to step up and do the work required.  Same thing happened with my townhouse association; I went to a few meetings, and then they needed to fill a vacancy and I didn't say no.  The world is run by the people who bother to show up, and they're managed by the people who are willing to step up and put in the work to do so.  Most of the time they're good people just trying to make things better; the trouble comes when someone with an ulterior motive decides to get involved.

53 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

A Republic is a way to have the dictators and get rid of them when needed.  Naturally the dictators will try to wire the system to keep that from happening, which is where but the US, Europe and related states are right now.  Democracies and Republics work best when the powerful are subject to being removed from power.

Most of the time, seems like the problem is, again, finding someone else who can do and is willing to do the hard work.  If you impeach someone, who will take their place?  If you don't like your local candidate, who else could you vote for?  Do they have the needed experience, and are they willing to do the job?  Most of the time, the people who would be willing to do the job and are qualified to do it, are already doing a similar job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

My mom ends up an officer in just about every club she joins, simply because no one else is willing to step up and do the work required.  Same thing happened with my townhouse association; I went to a few meetings, and then they needed to fill a vacancy and I didn't say no.  The world is run by the people who bother to show up, and they're managed by the people who are willing to step up and put in the work to do so.  Most of the time they're good people just trying to make things better; the trouble comes when someone with an ulterior motive decides to get involved.

There just needs to be some money or power involved (really the same thing.  Money is simply power that is freely convertible to other forms), as anyone who has been in a fanclub or lived under a homeowner's association can tell you.

 

8 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

Most of the time, seems like the problem is, again, finding someone else who can do and is willing to do the hard work.  If you impeach someone, who will take their place?  If you don't like your local candidate, who else could you vote for?  Do they have the needed experience, and are they willing to do the job?  Most of the time, the people who would be willing to do the job and are qualified to do it, are already doing a similar job.

If Zaphod Bebblebrox did not exist we would have to create him.  :)

Really the matter of who we replace a bad leader with is the same problem as who get/allow to lead in the first place.  If you don't have good options for replacement, fix the part of the system that spits out the leader options in the first place.  Otherwise garbage-in/garbage-out is all you can reasonably expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Speak for yourself!

Well, I don't want subordinates, but I'm introvert or maybe worse.

19 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

I'm glad I live in my world and not the one you describe, which would be a very depressing place.

I would also prefer to live in the world YOU described. Last election, noone offered me that option. Not even the ones who clearly didn't planed to do the things they DID promised.

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Humans are simply too social for Solaria to be a viable future, IMHO. 

Having read the summary of the idea, I have to agree.  Humans have a basic need for contact, especially as they mature.  A planet where every human lived their whole life without contact with another human would be a planet of severely deranged people who would likely be very difficult for the robots to keep alive long enough for another generation, even with artificial help.

There was presumably lot of filtering. Only very small number of people WANTED to live on Solaria. And it's quite likely they WERE deranged.

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Most of the time they're good people just trying to make things better;

Just when the amount of work is clearly bigger than the profit you get from that. The high level positions like politics are FULL of people with ulterior motives.

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Do they have the needed experience, and are they willing to do the job?  Most of the time, the people who would be willing to do the job and are qualified to do it, are already doing a similar job.

In many cases the people willing to do the job are not qualified for it no matter how much experience they have. As Douglas Adams put it, "It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." He might be exaggerating, but not much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

As Douglas Adams put it, "It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." He might be exaggerating, but not much.

metoo.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

 

Really the matter of who we replace a bad leader with is the same problem as who get/allow to lead in the first place.  If you don't have good options for replacement, fix the part of the system that spits out the leader options in the first place.  Otherwise garbage-in/garbage-out is all you can reasonably expect.

 Or, as my late father used to say, if you keep going to the pig trough, don't be surprised that all you get is pig slop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now