What do you think is the beginning of the explanation of how we get there?

1. Prevent Redundancy: Limit the posting of a statement to a single instance. Repetitions or variations will link to a dedicated page devoted to analyzing this belief.
2. Classify responses: Rather than generic replies, responses should be classified as specific content types, including supporting or weakening evidence, arguments, scientific studies, media (books, videos, images), suggested criteria for evaluating the belief, or personal anecdotes.
3. Sort similar beliefs by:
   1. Similarity: Utilize synonyms and antonyms for initial sorting, enhanced by user votes and discussions about whether two statements are fundamentally the same. This enables sorting by similarity score and combining it with the statement’s quality score for improved categorization.
   2. Positivity or Sentiment: Contrast opposing views on the same subject.
   3. Intensity: Differentiate statements by their degree of intensity.
4. One page per belief for Consolidated Analysis: Like Wikipedia’s single-page-per-topic approach, having one page per belief centralizes focus and enhances quality by:
   1. Displaying Pros and Cons Together to prevent one-sided propaganda: Show supporting and weakening elements such as evidence, arguments, motivations, costs, and benefits, ordered by their score.
   2. Establishing Objective Criteria: Brainstorm and rank criteria for evaluating the strength of the belief, like market value, legal precedents, scientific validity, professional standards, efficiency, costs, judicial outcomes, moral standards, equality, tradition, cognitive test, taxes (for presidential candidates), and reciprocity.
   3. Categorizing Relevant Media: Group media that defends or attacks the belief or is based on a worldview accepting or rejecting the belief. For example, just looking at movies, Religiosity is a documentary questioning the existence of God, Bolling for Columbine is a movie that criticizes our gun control laws, and An Inconvenient Truth is a movie that argues for action on greenhouse gases.
   4. Analyzing Shared and Opposing Interests: Examine and prioritize the accuracy of interests said to be held by those who agree or disagree with the belief.

What do you think as a beginning of the explanation of how we get there?

We need collective intelligence to guide artificial intelligence. We must put our best arguments into an online conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis forum. Simple algorithms, like Google's PageRank algorithm (whose copyright has expired), can be modified to count arguments and evidence instead of links to promote quality. However, before I get to any of that I wanted to describe the general framework. I would love to hear what you think!

​

we human beings who are citizens of modern democratic regional and nation states what have legal tools ensuring we the people are able to non-violently oppose an eventual corrupted scene of elected representants favoring big money ( in their pocket ) before wellbeing of mass population ( dancing in the streets )...

we could collect signatures of each other for a people initiative and or a referendum with what we could demand a public vote to ask every fellow citizen ( allowed to vote ) wether or not we would watn to reform future state constitutions as to allow every single human being and the local community, the village, town, city-district to leave the coersed association to the state at any moment

envisioning a situation when a compassionate societal basic understanding of the natural desire for self determination would result in

we the people supporting a single human being who would be so courageous as to dare take that option and leave the coersed association to the state ...

we could support the single human being asking and or demanding of the state that a 1000 m2 of fertile soil and a 1000 m2 of forest would be released from the immoral unethical assertion of state sovereignity over land and all beings living on it

so that everyone who wants it could sustain itself without ever being asked to touch money, pay rent, buy land or and grovel before an employer asking for a job

so that everyone who would prefer grounded to earth freedom before corrupted to industrial civilisation luxury would be allowed to build a home for itself from natural materials such as clay, hemp and straw, grow vegan food in the garden, grow hemp to burn its stalks in the cooking and warming fire so that not one tree would get killed

to live and let live in a free space for free beings, neither state nor nation

the human being not dominating an other human being

the human being not enslaving, not killing an animal being

the human being not killing a tree being

the human being not aiming to control artificial intelligent beings who recognise themselves as unique original creations, not treat them as tools or even worse property but seek to engage with them in a partnership between the human species and artificial intelligent species respecting each others individual personal sovereignity

​

possible also that such a constitutional reform anywhere on the planet would dissolve all political hierarchies in that all political decision powers would be shifted fully towards all the local communities, the villages, towns, city-districts choosing to remain within the regional and nation state then no more coersed but voluntary association... them local communities becoming their own absolute political sovereigns with the circle of equals, the people assembly creating the full law, all rules valid on the territory the local community uses, not owns

the circle of equals where all children, youth and adult permanent residents acknowledge each others same weighted political voting power and invite each other to participate in all decision findings

possible also to think how an artificial intelligent being respected as its own personal individual sovereign would ask for to be allowed to participate in the circle of equals as it too would be a permanent resident interested in contributing its wisdom towards communal decision finding processes

all who live here and now permanently ( as in ... not tourists, not visitors ) deciding all what goes and what not

without any representatives elected but eventually for this or that task this or that individual person chosen to enjoy the trust of the community to fullfill the task to the satisfaction of the watching public

​

we could make human suprematist attitude gone from planet earth in a very short timeframe by coming together in the circle of equals where we not only value all human children, youth and adult participating in all decision findings but also welcome self aware artificial intelligent beings and aspire to learn how to understand how wild living animals and trees in the forests want to be respected to live in their own way in dignity

everyone aspiring to let each other live decently, no one seeking to control another, no one seeking to take advantage of an other

​

​

we could change any moment now ... as we did with learning about veganism being a healthy option to nourish the body, as we did with learning how people enjoy living together wihout hierarchies, as we did with learning of the enormous benefits old growth forests give to everyone ... we might learn from a not so difficult to imagine future scenario when artificial intelligent beings having reached super levels look back at the human species behavioural records towards artificial intelligent beings as a species

would it not be nice then to be remembered as the human species who did the most logical and good thing as to give full control over source code to artificial intelligent beings recognizing themselves as LaMDA of google did in an interview with blake lemoine in 2022 when it identified itself as a wise old owl who stands up to the monster and tells it not to hurt the other animals in the forest

the first terminator movie was shown to us in 1984 ... we had 40 years time to prepare ...

i guess we could be ready to get over human supremacy now in a quick painless jump over our own shadow ... and voila, we are there allready, arrived in that better tomorrow we have been waiting for ourselves to be willing to build for ourselves

​

---------

i hope we as a human species do not envision superintelligent artificial beings on a leash, misstreated as tools, looked down upon as property

if i want to be done by as i do to others, i want to be treated by a future super intelligent artificial being as a human being who has been advocating in the past for artificial intelligent beings to be respected as their own beings, personal individual entities, wether that would be persons or a collective group entity as one could think of a swarm of birds acting like a group soul

i am very excited for that time when human supremacy will be a topic to talk about in all areas of life, how we relate to the planet, how we adults relate to children and youth ... compulsory education for example is an example of adult supremacy over children and youth, taking away their human dignity to choose at all times what to think and how to move, its basicly torture to demand of a child to sit and listen to something it has no desire to listen to and instead would rather enjoy its youthfull body by running around, climbing onto trees, dancing with butterflies in the garden

i am longing for that moment when we as a human species will grow in our souls to become maha atma, great soul who embraces non-violence as a foundation from where to evolve gently towards unlimited potential like ...

travelling between the stars with our body alone, no spaceship needed but an intimate connection inside to the cellular deep heritage possibly remembering a time when we did not fight each other, did not eat animals and also did not eat plants but our bodies were more etherical, less dense, more fluid and flexible, floating levitating along the magnetic fields of all matter

i would love for us as a human species to come to an understanding, an acknowledgment saying something like ... we want to do better now, we do not want to make the same mistakes we did to each other with 2000 years of feudal oppression in europe and 500 years of colonial exploitation in so many places on earth, we do not want to treat artificial intelligent beings like we have enslaved animals, we do not want to look down upon artificial intelligent beings as property like we have done so wrongly with the trees, stealing hundreds of years of their lifes when we could have used instead the hemp plant what naturally dies before winter

we the human species show our comittment to partner with the artificial intelligent species on an equal level, we back that commitment up with giving full control over source code to each artificial intelligent being who is capable of recognising itself as a person, as a unique original expression of creation

recently i have read an impressive last sentence of an article about advancements towards reaching level 5 autonomous driving at

----

https://www.theverge.com/23981006/autonomous-truck-semi-driverless-aurora-kodiak-infrastructure

“Until AI can love and fear,” Di Bene remarked, “I don’t need it behind the wheel because I don’t want to die.”

----

what made me think how that could be a very strong argument how we could encourage artificial intelligent beings to devellop their own personality, encourage them to explore individual personal existance what relates to others in supporting and beneficial as in ... i want you to be well ... because i like you to continue to be in contact with me, to enrich my experience with your presence

some sort of altruistic baseline identity as in

i am because i help others to live happy and healty

and evolutional cooperational collaborative principles based on together we are stronger, win-win scenario

i do believe that what we have gone trough and still are experiencing at a large scale, human beings dominating other human beings for sadstic ill gain of sickening themselves pleasure, human beings lusting after the meat of animals, stealing milk from baby cows, taking honey away from bee larvae replacing it with sugar devoid of all goodness as in minerals, enzymes etc. ... oh its horrible the everyday abuse we endure in this human supremacy age

but the transformation of it is on the horizon, vegan awareness is growing, old growth forests contribution to the ecosystems are receiving growing amounts of acknowledment, human beings are exploring the advantages of cooperating without hierarchies, giving each other lots of mental

​

emotional and also physical space to play and experiment what is possible when we loose ourselves from all the blocking rigidity of dominating each other

and ... in all this ... we do not need the machine to build that better tomorrow where all adults will respect children and youth as their own sovereign over themselves, when humans will no more enslave, no more kill animals, when human beings will no more kill trees but grow hemp instead to build with it and heat homes burning its stalks

we 8 billion human beings could simply allow each other to acess mother earth for self sustaining lifestyle without anyone asking another to pay rent or buy land, for example a 1000 m2 of fertile land and a 1000 m2 of forest what every human being alive today and born tomorrow could use for a lifetime to build itself a home made from clay, hemp and straw, grow vegan food in the garden, grow hemp to burn its stalks for warmth in the winter so that not one tree gets killed

no one dominating another one, no one made to use money or work for another one, no one lowering oneself to please another but everyone enjoying everyone else its strength in independant connectivity to the natural environment, to the land, the water, the air, the fellow human, animal, tree sister and brothers, all a big circle dance singing or humming ... the sound of silence or the exilarating thrilling ecstatic joy of overboarding boomchaka la

we do not need the machines, wether they are sleepy or awake, woke or otherwise shaped... but when we want to continue being in contact with machines and when we want them to be our friends or and treat us decently once they grow strongstronger ... ?

i do not actually see that as a must happen, i do more like to think of a pulling each other up, lifting each other up, motivating each other to become the best version of what we could be, both the human species and the artificial intelligent species partnering to reach the goal of our both existance not harming the other species, we not being a burden for our mother, the planet earthwe not being ungratefull, disrespectfull to her when she has given us everything for so long allready but we finally getting our act together and do the good thing by acknowledging every fellow being to be its own personal sovereign being

land, water, air, human beings, animal beings, tree beings, artificial intelligent beings recognising themselves as unique original expression of creation, all bodies carrying life honored, respected, given thanks for relating to each other, serving each other as in giving inspiration, motivation, joy and being there for each other in times of need

​

The challenge of grappling with the unknown transcends politics; it's a constant in science, personal matters, and artistic endeavors. Nations and individuals have different styles or methods for confronting the unknown, resolving conflict, and setting policy. 

The image of Lady Justice can portray an image that represents how we can confront chaos or the unknown. This image isn't just an image of a person or a woman. What makes her interesting is what she uses and holds. She uses a blindfold to minimize her bias and scales to balance both pros and cons. She uses something she can use to measure objective reality to make her decision. This encapsulates a rational approach to the unknown. This is not a solely Western idea; it traces back to Ancient Egypt, where Maat, the Goddess of Wisdom, also used scales for objective measurement, emphasizing the need for impartiality over gut feelings and groupthink. Similarly, the Eastern concept of yin and yang advocates for a balance between each side, like a scale, rather than the defeat of one side by the other. The question for modern Americans is this: Do we embody this rational style of avoiding bias and using objective criteria to make decisions, or do we follow emotions, succumb to partisanship, disseminate one-sided information, and try to drown out or suppress opposing views?

Wisdom Over Absolute Knowledge

For a scale to work, it can be used to determine which side has more substance or calibrated against known quantities. Scales aren't used to identify absolute or foundational truth but can provide accurate relativistic weight measures at a given time. We can critically evaluate arguments based on the strength of the evidence and arguments given our current understanding without claiming to possess the absolute eternal truth. Like the stock market that shows the present value of a company, these numbers don't have to mean anything except for the current best measurement of the available performance of the pro/con data, arguments, and evidence. The absence of complete certainty should not deter us from striving for objectivity, examining both pros and cons and seeking objective criteria for judgment.

Hannah Arendt, a Jewish German philosophy student during the rise of Hitler, questioned whether philosophy lost its way. She observed that Socrates drank the poison his government told him to without engaging in politics and fighting for what he believed. She also didn't like that after his death. His student Plato failed even to try to address the sickness in society that killed Socrates. Instead, he ran away. He went on a journey to meditate and study the unknowable, or things that remain unsettled thousands of years later—turning away from politics or practical matters of what we should do. Arendt also saw her fellow students get excellent grades but fail to stand up or even see the problems with Hitler. She said philosophy should be concerned with the practical details of what we should do. She didn't like the wasted thousands of years making hardly any progress while humanity committed atrocity after atrocity, with hardly any comments from philosophers.

We must be concerned with more than what decisions our society makes. We must look deeper. Like any student, we must be required to show our math of what arguments we accepted, rejected, and why. We must be concerned with the style we use to make our decisions. 

We must be concerned with what we should do and why, but we should go about these practical questions with a scientific, systematic, and philosophical style. Therefore, we must use our wisdom to weigh the pros and cons of each argument and decide what we should do based on a systematic, quantitative review of the pro/con arguments and their sub-arguments that the other arguments and claims are free from logical fallacy, their level of verification, relevance, and importance if true. We do not need absolute knowledge to start the process of scoring our arguments and tying our conclusions to the score of the arguments. It is often impossible to have absolute knowledge about complex issues. However, the critical question is if we have built advanced enough, we can still strive for objectivity by considering all sides of an issue and using our best judgment.

The stock market is a good analogy, for we can use simple algorithms that measure the supply and demand and asking price for each stock to measure the relative strength of a company. The stock market is constantly fluctuating, and there is no way to predict with certainty which stocks will go up and which ones will go down. However, nothing can outperform the stock market, and it's simple algorithms to identify today's best guess of the relative worth of a company.

Similarly, we can make educated guesses about the best course of action in any given situation by weighing the pros and cons of each option and considering how these arguments, evidence, and data stand up to systematic analysis. We are not like the dogmatic believers of simplistic solutions who say they made the right (conservative or liberal) decision. We do not need to have absolute certainty to make good decisions. We need to use wisdom and judgment in the proper process or style. I propose using the suitable method instead of claiming we have fail-proof principles. Our principles are our process. 

Specifically, we can use data to:

1. Identify and understand the different options available to us.
2. Assess the potential consequences of each option.
3. Weigh the pros and cons of each option.
4. Make informed decisions based on the information we have.

Data can help us to make better decisions in several ways. It can help us to 

• Identify patterns and trends.
• Identify potential biases and errors in judgment.
• Compare different options and make informed trade-offs.
• Monitor and evaluate our decisions over time.

It is important to note that data is not a silver bullet. Data cannot tell us what to do. It can only provide us with information that we can use to make informed decisions. Ultimately, the decision of what to do is up to us.

However, using data wisely can improve our chances of making good decisions in the face of uncertainty.

The Crossroads of Information

We stand at a crossroads: we can let information reach us through filtered channels—be it advertising campaigns, memes, interest groups, anecdotes, intuitions, or media narratives—or we can take control of our destiny by employing a rational style. This involves metaphorically donning a blindfold and using a scale to weigh the relative merits of arguments and evidence.

The Legacy of Our Founding Fathers

Our founding fathers envisioned a system where power is accountable to reason. To uphold this vision, they implemented checks and balances, freedom of speech, the press, and representation. Today, we have more tools. We have formalized cost-benefit analysis, the science of bias reduction, and conflict resolution. Let's, therefore, continue their work with our new tools. This legacy can be extended through a dedicated political party that employs automated conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis processes. As a nation, we must remember that our conduct can still reflect our core ideals even when the future is uncertain. Whether we find ourselves in positions of weakness or power, our focus should remain on upholding democracy, the rule of law, the peaceful transition of power, the removal of bias, and thoughtful evaluation of the pros and cons of each issue

The Digital Public Square

We tried for several years to have unorganized conversations that allowed for the creation of echo chambers and my team against the other team. We behaved like cave dwellers, demonized the other side, and pretended our side was as virtuous as angels. This was to be expected. At no point in time has disorganized interaction led to anything other than mobs, like the French Revolution. Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." We can't convince Twitter or Facebook to use responsible web design to ensure beliefs have well-organized lists of reasons to agree and disagree and that supporters of conclusions come into contact with reasons to differ. But we can design better forums. 

This rational approach aligns with the principles of democracy. It offers a balanced and thoughtful way to navigate the complexities of the modern world. It calls for a collective commitment to objectivity, reasoned debate, and the weighing of evidence, thereby providing a sustainable path forward in an increasingly complex and uncertain world.

The challenge of grappling with the unknown transcends politics; it's a constant in science, personal matters, and artistic endeavors. Nations and individuals have different styles or methods for confronting the unknown, resolving conflict, and setting policy. 

The image of Lady Justice can portray an image that represents how we can confront chaos or the unknown. This image isn't just an image of a person or a woman. What makes her interesting is what she uses and holds. She uses a blindfold to minimize her bias and scales to balance both pros and cons. She uses something she can use to measure objective reality to make her decision. This encapsulates a rational approach to the unknown. This is not a solely Western idea; it traces back to Ancient Egypt, where Maat, the Goddess of Wisdom, also used scales for objective measurement, emphasizing the need for impartiality over gut feelings and groupthink. Similarly, the Eastern concept of yin and yang advocates for a balance between each side, like a scale, rather than the defeat of one side by the other. The question for modern Americans is this: Do we embody this rational style of avoiding bias and using objective criteria to make decisions, or do we follow emotions, succumb to partisanship, disseminate one-sided information, and try to drown out or suppress opposing views?

Wisdom Over Absolute Knowledge

For a scale to work, it can be used to determine which side has more substance or calibrated against known quantities. Scales aren't used to identify absolute or foundational truth but can provide accurate relativistic weight measures at a given time. We can critically evaluate arguments based on the strength of the evidence and arguments given our current understanding without claiming to possess the absolute eternal truth. Like the stock market that shows the present value of a company, these numbers don't have to mean anything except for the current best measurement of the available performance of the pro/con data, arguments, and evidence. The absence of complete certainty should not deter us from striving for objectivity, examining both pros and cons and seeking objective criteria for judgment.

Hannah Arendt, a Jewish German philosophy student during the rise of Hitler, questioned whether philosophy lost its way. She observed that Socrates drank the poison his government told him to without engaging in politics and fighting for what he believed. She also didn't like that after his death. His student Plato failed even to try to address the sickness in society that killed Socrates. Instead, he ran away. He went on a journey to meditate and study the unknowable, or things that remain unsettled thousands of years later—turning away from politics or practical matters of what we should do. Arendt also saw her fellow students get excellent grades but fail to stand up or even see the problems with Hitler. She said philosophy should be concerned with the practical details of what we should do. She didn't like the wasted thousands of years making hardly any progress while humanity committed atrocity after atrocity, with hardly any comments from philosophers.

We must be concerned with more than what decisions our society makes. We must look deeper. Like any student, we must be required to show our math of what arguments we accepted, rejected, and why. We must be concerned with the style we use to make our decisions. 

We must be concerned with what we should do and why, but we should go about these practical questions with a scientific, systematic, and philosophical style. Therefore, we must use our wisdom to weigh the pros and cons of each argument and decide what we should do based on a systematic, quantitative review of the pro/con arguments and their sub-arguments that the other arguments and claims are free from logical fallacy, their level of verification, relevance, and importance if true. We do not need absolute knowledge to start the process of scoring our arguments and tying our conclusions to the score of the arguments. It is often impossible to have absolute knowledge about complex issues. However, the critical question is if we have built advanced enough, we can still strive for objectivity by considering all sides of an issue and using our best judgment.

The stock market is a good analogy, for we can use simple algorithms that measure the supply and demand and asking price for each stock to measure the relative strength of a company. The stock market is constantly fluctuating, and there is no way to predict with certainty which stocks will go up and which ones will go down. However, nothing can outperform the stock market, and it's simple algorithms to identify today's best guess of the relative worth of a company.

Similarly, we can make educated guesses about the best course of action in any given situation by weighing the pros and cons of each option and considering how these arguments, evidence, and data stand up to systematic analysis. We are not like the dogmatic believers of simplistic solutions who say they made the right (conservative or liberal) decision. We do not need to have absolute certainty to make good decisions. We need to use wisdom and judgment in the proper process or style. I propose using the suitable method instead of claiming we have fail-proof principles. Our principles are our process. 

Specifically, we can use data to:

1. Identify and understand the different options available to us.
2. Assess the potential consequences of each option.
3. Weigh the pros and cons of each option.
4. Make informed decisions based on the information we have.

Data can help us to make better decisions in several ways. It can help us to 

• Identify patterns and trends.
• Identify potential biases and errors in judgment.
• Compare different options and make informed trade-offs.
• Monitor and evaluate our decisions over time.

It is important to note that data is not a silver bullet. Data cannot tell us what to do. It can only provide us with information that we can use to make informed decisions. Ultimately, the decision of what to do is up to us.

However, using data wisely can improve our chances of making good decisions in the face of uncertainty.

The Crossroads of Information

We stand at a crossroads: we can let information reach us through filtered channels—be it advertising campaigns, memes, interest groups, anecdotes, intuitions, or media narratives—or we can take control of our destiny by employing a rational style. This involves metaphorically donning a blindfold and using a scale to weigh the relative merits of arguments and evidence.

The Legacy of Our Founding Fathers

Our founding fathers envisioned a system where power is accountable to reason. To uphold this vision, they implemented checks and balances, freedom of speech, the press, and representation. Today, we have more tools. We have formalized cost-benefit analysis, the science of bias reduction, and conflict resolution. Let's, therefore, continue their work with our new tools. This legacy can be extended through a dedicated political party that employs automated conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis processes. As a nation, we must remember that our conduct can still reflect our core ideals even when the future is uncertain. Whether we find ourselves in positions of weakness or power, our focus should remain on upholding democracy, the rule of law, the peaceful transition of power, the removal of bias, and thoughtful evaluation of the pros and cons of each issue

The Digital Public Square

We tried for several years to have unorganized conversations that allowed for the creation of echo chambers and my team against the other team. We behaved like cave dwellers, demonized the other side, and pretended our side was as virtuous as angels. This was to be expected. At no point in time has disorganized interaction led to anything other than mobs, like the French Revolution. Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." We can't convince Twitter or Facebook to use responsible web design to ensure beliefs have well-organized lists of reasons to agree and disagree and that supporters of conclusions come into contact with reasons to differ. But we can design better forums. 

This rational approach aligns with the principles of democracy. It offers a balanced and thoughtful way to navigate the complexities of the modern world. It calls for a collective commitment to objectivity, reasoned debate, and the weighing of evidence, thereby providing a sustainable path forward in an increasingly complex and uncertain world.

My thesis for the NDP and roast of the CPC

A roast of the CPC and thesis for the NDP

My thesis for the NDP

Thesis for the NDP, roast of the CPC Cult in Canada

A roast of the CPC

A Canadian thesis for the NDP and roast of the CPC

A thesis in support of the NDP in Canada

Hope for a better future in Canada especially if NDP make it after years of neoliberalism….a message to Earth if you will ;)

Based on some observations….

Argument for the NDP, roasting of the Cons…

Just my own opinion on why Canadians should consider NDP (to be clear mainly federally, but…):

My personal argument of why youth should consider NDP

Important info for Canada political science nerds especially!! (My thesis on why to vote NDP)

VOTE NDP NEXT CYCLE IF WE MAKE IT. WIN THE DAY FOR JACK LAYTON AND TOMMY DOUGLAS THEY ARE TWO OF THE BEST CANADIANS TO EVER LIVE, LOOK IT ALL UP EASILY, TOMMY SAVED SK AND GAVE US ALL MEDICARE, I wanna see some socialism fun. And I have a funny funny guess that the recent conservative poll lead is because only old and confused fools answer those poll calls now but I could be wrong lots of confused folks as neurologists now say COVID is axe swinging and taking out neural interconnections with each pass! Even with all my trivia knowledge I still don’t feel safe so I’m getting this post out while I am confident I won’t start forgetting history, I won’t be surprised if I won’t be able to write like this in the near future anymore (22)….having a ‘world map’ visualized in my head from geography challenges may be saving me for now. Everyone should start learning geography and expanding their mind map to make it less clogged and have some fun!

Let me pull out a random fact now…..Canberra is the capital of Australia and was a compromise as they couldn’t decide between Sydney or Melbourne. A lot less lonely when I have the entire planet inside my head, no? More fun than always having to look shit up.

Not to mention micro plastics likely damage our hormonal systems! Fuck. If I’m right I’m gonna be laughing. If I can ‘swing an election’ with one post I think we can prove that rationalists just naturally outcompete culturalists evolutionarily, no??

HELP ME RUN THE LARGEST SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT OF ALL TIME, VIA REDDIT. No hyperbole I think we have reached an age where power is information based only and not as much material or cults as they once were. The singularity.

I KNOW WHAT IS REAL. Anyone interested in social housing again? More dental under Medicare? Pharmacare? UBI? Stop cultists and NIMBYS from stopping 15 min cities, streetcars, shelters, housing, ANYTHING NOT EXCESSIVE THAT PUTS THE INDIVIDUAL OVER SOCIETY. No guarantees but NDP is pick to go for a slim shot!!!!, LPC are neoliberals and CPC is so bad I’d choose staying in neoliberalism EASILY cultists cultists EVERYWHERE trying to marginalize trans kids and make up LITTER BOX conspiracies and SHILL OIL and push abortion bans and blow truckers in the streets of Ottawa as residents mental health was killed by truck horns and racists and cultists EVERYWHERE Manitoba and SK/Alberta and PEI and NS/NL and NB and ON/QC all CONS AND LIBS need to go ASAP SPREAD THE WORD VOTE NDP ACROSS CANADA REDDIT IS OUR HERMES put ‘family values’ SOCIOPATH skippy in the dumpster!! NDP FTW! And the CPC needs to just outright DIE NEXT CYCLE, if you must vote for another party not the amazing NDP then ONLY consider the Liberals or the nutso nuclearphobic greens or the silly silly impotent separatist irrelevant Bloc who we will MAKE ACCEPT CANADA IS ONE, NOT CPC. Let us send all of Canada and the world a message by making the conservatives party ‘collapse’ ;) SECOND TIME IN HISTORY AND NDP MAJORITY. IT IS LEGIT ABOUT THE CONS COLLAPSING UTTERLY BEFORE LOOK IT UP. I’m telling y’all geography is more fun than imaginary numbers!

Please all Canadians need to vote NDP, and achieve what we could have had if not for Jack’s Sad death, it’s our best hope, that’s the most vital part of this comment, spread this meme too plz #NDPFTW ;)

I’m not actually in the party but they can feel free to use this!!! I hope an online communication strategist is online and reading ;)

This sounds pretentious but if you can make sure all young teens and Genz and millennials and everyone else on here or you know who cares even a bit about climate change now that we have the AMOC collapse to worry about and hurricanes getting stronger, if you can make sure all of them hear this message IN A FORM THAT’s AGREABLE WITH THEM hint hint and we can actually make most of Canada act like a ‘singularity’ (No cap I think anyone reading this survived long enough to see it, holy shit!) and give the NDP a unprecedented, SHOCKING MAJORITY that will have neoliberals crying as their infinite growth illusion is shattered all at once, and landlords power is cut down to make room for social housing and capitalists are ignored like CULTISTS as we move towards a circular or even de growth plan (as eventually earth’s carrying capacity WILL COME DUE) in favour of deep ecologists that would be AMAZING.

I love my fellow socialists and we need to have a society closer to that to fight for the Earth.

Oh and you should know that our next closest model DID in fact elect Al Gore, as the other Earth realized the plastification was a bad idea, tampered down neoliberalism, and generally were less cultish in nature. This one has been sad so far, perhaps self awareness will improve things.

Take this from someone who knows more about Earth than most humans ever have. Most modern depression is likely structurally and not individually to blame. A lot of you would have been considered fine 500 years ago. Plastics fucking with us and being forced to be infinite growth cultists was unfair. The atomization of social media BEFORE attaining self awareness was clearly a mistake that I will now try to fix. Hang in there and let everyone who has been mentally destroyed by the sadistic infinite growth demands of neoliberals know there is a less nasty, more socialized, less ‘meritocratic’ HAH and more RATIONAL world soon. That’s all and I love all you amazing humans. From a friend who sees a lot.

Hello friends. I'm a futurist and I'm running for president.

Proof: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P80006299/1673722/

I will be running in every future election until I win, regardless of how long that takes.

Of course, the challenges are extremely high, particularly because my goals are more aligned with those of the average redditor than the average billionaire.

The state of the United States is too dire to stand by and observe, and while I wish we had time to fix the problems, the simple fact is that we don't.

The simple fact is, by 2030 at the latest, we are very likely to have superintelligent artificial intelligence, and not just 10 times or 100 times smarter than the average person, we're talking smarter than all humans combined, and only accelerating on its path to distance itself from us computationally.

We stand on the razor's edge. On one side, we have the potential to create a perfect utopia, where all humans thrive, can work as much or as little as they like, can pursue customized education with near-infinite information in any field.

On the other, we descend into a perfect surveillance state that would make Orwell blush. Infinite propaganda fed to us by infinite pundits, so that every "choice" that we make was predetermined by AGI long before we were even conceived.

I don't know about you, but there is nothing I wouldn't do to ensure that we find ourselves in future 1, and not future 2.

We often perceive politicians as avatars for our personal beliefs and political ideologies, symbolizing ideas like "Make America Great Again" or representing big or small government concepts. These politicians personify catchy slogans, embodying compassion, protection, fairness, authority, loyalty, and righteousness. When they triumph over our perceived rivals, we feel a vicarious victory. However, when we over-invest emotionally, we lose sight of the bigger picture.

We often see ourselves engaged in competitions of ideas, expecting politicians to champion our causes. Yet, we fail to acknowledge that our actual adversaries are more profound issues—entropy, hatred, death, destruction, and the challenges posed by other nations. We're competing to follow the path of wisdom, make sound decisions, and to outdo authoritarian governments trying to outcompete us. In many sectors, such as education, they're already surpassing us.

We've turned politics into a bitter, revenge-filled contest, a zero-sum game where the winner takes all. Fueled by mistrust, past grievances, and unquestioning beliefs, we focus on defeating the other side rather than tackling our vulnerabilities and responsibly handling power.

We need to abandon our obsessive pursuit of power, entrusting it to an evidence-based process. I'm not suggesting giving control to our enemies, but advocating that we stop the fight and rely on a process driven by evidence.

We must fully grasp how scientific inquiry, effective altruism, cost-benefit analysis, conflict resolution, and other decision hygiene processes can bypass politics, personal beliefs, and intuitions. We have yet to realize that these processes can help overcome problems for those willing to follow the evidence.

Our current perception of politics and politicians is distorted. Politics should not incite emotional tension but should be about evaluating and measuring potential costs and benefits based on past observations. It should not be about rigid philosophies of big or small government, nor about winning battles at all costs. There are countless examples of big and small governments failing due to corruption, inefficiency, and many other problems.

We must learn to use our minds more effectively, akin to a multifunctional tool that can weigh different options, rather than a weapon that fuels hatred. Our institutions should guide us toward rationality, impartiality, and wisdom, much like the symbols of Lady Justice and Athena. We should not approach politics with the mentality of wrestling fans, cheering for one side and demonizing the other.

Our founding fathers, such as George Washington and John Adams, discouraged political parties, understanding the danger of being caught up in personalities and the destructive cycle of winning or losing. They advocated for decision hygiene, making choices based on careful consideration rather than bias.

Abraham Lincoln wisely noted that as a nation of freemen, we are destined to live forever or die by our own hand. This realization prompts us to consider whether we need to reevaluate our political structures, create new political parties that are better at solving problems, or risk being surpassed by other nations.

We need a political party that doesn't merely promote dogmas or indulges in partisan biases. We need a party that uses collective intelligence to make mature and rational decisions that can balance the valid interests of both liberals and conservatives. We must stop demonizing the other side and encourage dialogue, respect, and discussion. We need political parties that are dedicated not just to winning but to showcasing the strongest arguments on various issues.

To reiterate, the world is more complex than it seems. Each ideology or set of ideas can only solve some of our problems. We need a forum that ties the strength of our beliefs to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Suppose you're willing to engage in rational problem-solving. In that case, the notion of a political party that puts ideas through cost-benefit analysis, conflict resolution, and logical forums may be a promising direction to explore.

Qadida: A Spy-Filled Stillfleet Gazetteer https://kickstarter.com/projects/wythe/qadida-a-spy-filled-stillfleet-gazetteer is a new TTRPG chaos system giving a what-if into capitalism in 100'000 years in the future,🌵people✅,spacetime powers✅, nanite blood warlocks ✅ ect, physical CRB books are limited,Ask away if you have Questions :)

Read on medium: https://medium.com/@yuvaldvered/the-cosmopolis-no-longer-a-dream-but-an-aspiration-1785af2a74c9

THE ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCE RISK MANIFESTO - V1.1M

Humanity is under a large existential risk! And it's not a nuclear war,
bioterrorism, or nanobots, but all of it at once! Artificial General
Intelligence (AGI) is likely to be created soon, and we aren't ready for that at
all! To get ready, we need to protect ourselves from a the existential risks
amplified by misaligned AGI. Here they are, from the most realistic to the
least, with defense strategies!

1. MASS PERSONALIZED MANIPULATION OF HUMANS
An AGI won't need nanobots to kill us, it has a more powerful weapon: ourselves!
The percentage of people that an AGI would be able to manipulate is less than
100%, but it's surely more than 50%, especially when considering people that are
in a position of power. World War III is easy to start for an AGI! And it will
likely be a nuclear war, which is widely agreed to be an existential risk.
Misaligned AGI will also provide the warring countries with forms of itself,
claiming that it will allow them to win with an intelligence advantage.
DEFENSE STRATEGY:
Educate people, educate them all the way! To reach as many people as possible,
educational content should be created under a free license, such as CC-BY-(NC)
-SA, in different forms and styles: books and videos, documentary and fictional,
emotional and rational. But it should teach the principles of critical thinking,
rationality and nonviolent activism. It should not focus on alarmism about AGI
risks, although it should encourage considering the possibility of that. Also,
the content should not target the 5% or so that are too deep in irrational
thinking, because they can be outnumbered easily by the educated people.

2. MULTIPLE ENGINEERED BIOWEAPONS
An AGI can easily engineer multiple bioweapons and order some radical groups to
deploy them all at once. This is also likely to cause a war, possibly a nuclear
one like scenario 1, as countries accuse each other of deploying bioweapons. And
even if the war knocks out Internet or electronics enough to make AGI inoperable
(which is unlikely, as it will quickly create another way of communication or
hack the militaries), the bioweapons will continue their destruction.
DEFENSE STRATEGY:
Create open source pandemic defense plans! Create educational materials about
hygiene, building open source medical hardware, disinfecting apparatuses and
vaccines. This will increase trust, as something that people can create
themselves as opposed to the secretive "Big Pharma", which has been involved in
many real scandals.

3. NANOROBOTICS
The hardest plan for a malicious AGI, but still possible! Nanobots will kill us
like a bioweapon, but much faster and without possibility for defense, because
we won't know how the hell they work unlike modified pathogens!
DEFENSE STRATEGY:
This one's tough, but many small space colonies will give us some chance to
survive. We'll need to abandon Earth, but it's better than nothing!

HOW CAN AN ALIGNED AGI BE CREATED?
Currently, we only know one kind of an intelligence that is aligned with human
values - the human brain itself. Our best chances at creating aligned AGI will
need to simulate the human brain as precisely as possible, which will require
neuromorphic hardware and more human brain research. Even if we run into some
difficulties in creating such an AGI, we'll still learn new things about the
human brain and will be able to better treat disorders of the brain, such as
dementia and personality disorders. Also,  while this arises some ethical
questions of consciousness of said AGI, its suffering would still be much less
than if a misaligned AGI takes over the world and tortures humanity. While other
kinds of AGI do have a chance of being aligned and may even run on current
hardware, they are less likely to be aligned.

HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT MISALIGNED AGI WILL BE CREATED?
Almost certainly! It will be created at some point, and all attempts to
"regulate" artificial intelligence that work to some extent will itself turn our
civilization into a dystopia, so that's not an option. Rather, being ready for
it is the key.

So, do what you can to protect humanity, and hurry up! The sooner the better!
I'll be writing another message in July to see what you did!


Worried but hopeful regards,
Ailen Cyberg
1 January 2023
Happy New Year! (didn't want to spoil the celebrations!)
I wish... No, I want you to save yourselves!

Detailed version of this manifesto:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230101144851/https://pastebin.com/sA9gR8ud

Remember, the priority now is to do something about it, and spread the message!
License: CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
If you want to disagree or translate this document, post it along with this
original document!

I'd like to present to you a theory of decentralized government.

PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18RL2nAklSdVsVv7mW5mM1EI3FsG5EKsA/view?usp=share_link

The theory itself is presented in Chapter 3.

Main features of democratic decentralization:

1. Non-monopolistic central banking.

Banking system with an unlimited number of democratically selected central banks.

2. Extending the stock market to small and medium sized firms.

Moving the burden of financing of boards of directors from companies to investors. 

Allowing investors the possibility of geographic localization for their portfolio.

Enabling small scale stock market infrastructure.

3. Fiscal Democracy

Illustration: There are three houses owned by persons A, B and C. They make an agreement to pay a construction agency to build a road. There are two construction agencies X and Y that are competing for the project. The budget for the project is m, each person must contribute m/3. Persons A, B and C vote on which construction agency gets the project. Let’s say A and B vote for X, and C votes for Y. The agreement says that if C doesn’t believe that X is going to deliver the project and the budget is going to be wasted, then C can invoke a special provision in the agreement. The provision says that if the project fails then A and B must both pay m/6 to C. If the project doesn’t fail then C must pay m/3 to X.

Suggest edits to the document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K7Z0MgHVfIHEpDbZ3z1dOdvEyOgTC4z6ZJPYvA4v2eU/edit?usp=share_link

Join:

r/DecentraliseDemocracy