Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Best principles to guarantee an ideal society

06yangji
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 7:56:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The scenario is the following: a century ship has somehow survived to land at an alternative earth like planet. It carries with it material capable of a viable human gene pool and an AI that has the stored cumulative technical knowledge of human society up to 2015. The AI is capable of teaching and raising these first humans to adulthood for the first generation, at which point they will be be required to further procreate on their own with the AI still remaining as a source of technical knowledge. My question is during this period, what guiding principles would most likely ensure an ideal society in the following:

1. Continued survival of the species
2. Continued (disregarding the speed) of technological innovation
3. Continued development of society beliefs towards the following goals
- Minimal corruption
- Minimal crime
- Ever improving opportunities for social mobility
4. Continued expansion (i.e. a mix of conservation, sustainability and space colonization)
5. Continued evolution of the species

Please provide answers and suggestions to further refine the questions.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 10:14:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 7:56:31 PM, 06yangji wrote:
The scenario is the following: a century ship has somehow survived to land at an alternative earth like planet. It carries with it material capable of a viable human gene pool and an AI that has the stored cumulative technical knowledge of human society up to 2015. The AI is capable of teaching and raising these first humans to adulthood for the first generation, at which point they will be be required to further procreate on their own with the AI still remaining as a source of technical knowledge. My question is during this period, what guiding principles would most likely ensure an ideal society in the following:

1. Continued survival of the species
2. Continued (disregarding the speed) of technological innovation
3. Continued development of society beliefs towards the following goals
- Minimal corruption
- Minimal crime
- Ever improving opportunities for social mobility
4. Continued expansion (i.e. a mix of conservation, sustainability and space colonization)
5. Continued evolution of the species

Please provide answers and suggestions to further refine the questions.

One principle: pragmatism.

Devotion to any principles above that one will lead to the relatively abrupt failure of any society.

Of course, pretending to have higher principles than pragmatism is almost always a necessity. But one mustn't go beyond pretending, for if a society does not survive it cannot accomplish anything. Putting humans on another planet won't change their nature. We will still have conflict. We will still have war. You are essentially putting men back into the 'state of nature' which doesn't really exist any more on earth. They are going to replay history on this grand new stage.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 3:16:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 7:56:31 PM, 06yangji wrote:
The scenario is the following: a century ship has somehow survived to land at an alternative earth like planet. It carries with it material capable of a viable human gene pool and an AI that has the stored cumulative technical knowledge of human society up to 2015. The AI is capable of teaching and raising these first humans to adulthood for the first generation, at which point they will be be required to further procreate on their own with the AI still remaining as a source of technical knowledge. My question is during this period, what guiding principles would most likely ensure an ideal society in the following:

1. Continued survival of the species
2. Continued (disregarding the speed) of technological innovation
3. Continued development of society beliefs towards the following goals
- Minimal corruption
- Minimal crime
- Ever improving opportunities for social mobility
4. Continued expansion (i.e. a mix of conservation, sustainability and space colonization)
5. Continued evolution of the species

Please provide answers and suggestions to further refine the questions.

6. Make sure everyone is able to reach their full potneital and get them to do what they love doing. (Oh and be excellent to one another). You get the basics right and everything else falls into place.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
06yangji
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:03:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with post #2: on pragmatism. But, my question more concerns teachings that the AI is able to impart upon the new humans so that they would be capable of the objectives i mentioned. And as i agree with the necessity for pragmatism in survival, then the question becomes how to impart societal beliefs upon the new humans to give them the best chance for survival as well as avoid many of the problems that humans have had in history with each other and the environment.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:13:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:03:56 PM, 06yangji wrote:
I agree with post #2: on pragmatism. But, my question more concerns teachings that the AI is able to impart upon the new humans so that they would be capable of the objectives i mentioned. And as i agree with the necessity for pragmatism in survival, then the question becomes how to impart societal beliefs upon the new humans to give them the best chance for survival as well as avoid many of the problems that humans have had in history with each other and the environment.

Study history. Study history ad nauseum, from as many different perspectives as possible. History is so powerful because it provides counterexamples, other ways of living, different lenses through which one can perceive both the world around us and ourselves. Give people an understand of all of the myriad things which their species has been, and they will be better prepared to decide what they are to become. The last thing that the computer should teach is that 'A, B, and C are better than X, Y, and Z.' That means fixing people in to a mode of thought which may not suit the current climate. Give people information without rigid instruction and they will adapt to whatever world they come to face.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
06yangji
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:32:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Again, my proposal does not assume rigid instructions. I am simply asking if it is possible, what would it be, for the AI to teach the humans to best allow them, if you prefer, to adapt to their environment despite unexpected environmental and social changes.

Let me further explain my train of thought. In a world where the species has access to its predecessors technological innovations and progress, but not its cultural and social history, without the presence of an overriding "god figure" to guide the species, how best to achieve the first stated goals (post #1) and give it the best probabilities for survival at the same time. For example, based on classical economics, where taxation, or minimum wages, creates a deadweight loss on society's supply and demand curve, introducing inefficiencies, perhaps one of the principles that the AI could teach the first humans is to not tax its citizens, or to not have minimum wages.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:57:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 10:14:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/16/2015 7:56:31 PM, 06yangji wrote:
The scenario is the following: a century ship has somehow survived to land at an alternative earth like planet. It carries with it material capable of a viable human gene pool and an AI that has the stored cumulative technical knowledge of human society up to 2015. The AI is capable of teaching and raising these first humans to adulthood for the first generation, at which point they will be be required to further procreate on their own with the AI still remaining as a source of technical knowledge. My question is during this period, what guiding principles would most likely ensure an ideal society in the following:

1. Continued survival of the species
2. Continued (disregarding the speed) of technological innovation
3. Continued development of society beliefs towards the following goals
- Minimal corruption
- Minimal crime
- Ever improving opportunities for social mobility
4. Continued expansion (i.e. a mix of conservation, sustainability and space colonization)
5. Continued evolution of the species

Please provide answers and suggestions to further refine the questions.

One principle: pragmatism.

Devotion to any principles above that one will lead to the relatively abrupt failure of any society.

Of course, pretending to have higher principles than pragmatism is almost always a necessity. But one mustn't go beyond pretending, for if a society does not survive it cannot accomplish anything. Putting humans on another planet won't change their nature. We will still have conflict. We will still have war. You are essentially putting men back into the 'state of nature' which doesn't really exist any more on earth. They are going to replay history on this grand new stage.

I couldn't have said it better about pragmatism.
You can call me Mark if you like.
iCannot
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 3:03:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 7:56:31 PM, 06yangji wrote:
The scenario is the following: a century ship has somehow survived to land at an alternative earth like planet. It carries with it material capable of a viable human gene pool and an AI that has the stored cumulative technical knowledge of human society up to 2015. The AI is capable of teaching and raising these first humans to adulthood for the first generation, at which point they will be be required to further procreate on their own with the AI still remaining as a source of technical knowledge. My question is during this period, what guiding principles would most likely ensure an ideal society in the following:

1. Continued survival of the species
2. Continued (disregarding the speed) of technological innovation
3. Continued development of society beliefs towards the following goals
- Minimal corruption
- Minimal crime
- Ever improving opportunities for social mobility
4. Continued expansion (i.e. a mix of conservation, sustainability and space colonization)
5. Continued evolution of the species

Please provide answers and suggestions to further refine the questions.
interesting suggestions. Although, since we can't really find an alternative planet, the idea is nothing until we are able to do so.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 3:03:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:32:59 PM, 06yangji wrote:
Again, my proposal does not assume rigid instructions. I am simply asking if it is possible, what would it be, for the AI to teach the humans to best allow them, if you prefer, to adapt to their environment despite unexpected environmental and social changes.

Let me further explain my train of thought. In a world where the species has access to its predecessors technological innovations and progress, but not its cultural and social history, without the presence of an overriding "god figure" to guide the species, how best to achieve the first stated goals (post #1) and give it the best probabilities for survival at the same time. For example, based on classical economics, where taxation, or minimum wages, creates a deadweight loss on society's supply and demand curve, introducing inefficiencies, perhaps one of the principles that the AI could teach the first humans is to not tax its citizens, or to not have minimum wages.

Since you seem familiar with some economic concepts, have you thought about what these ideas would really mean if put into practice? For example, no taxes means that due to the free rider problem, you are not going to be able to purchase certain public non-excludable goods. Do you really think that avoiding the deadweight loss introduced by taxation is worth not having any roads, or any national defense?
06yangji
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 3:30:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree about what you are saying regarding that the avoidance of deadweight loss might not justify the the wealth distribution, or public good that can be done through taxes, by the pooling of resources. I personally I'm not a libertarian or anarchist, therefore it was only a suggestion. Therefore, continuing your thoughts about taxation, could you frame a principle, or maybe a set of principles, where it would be most helpful to future generations in finding the balance between collective good and individual benefit in the context of taxation. As well, what are your opinions on the abolition of minimum wages?

P.S. If you wish, please incorporate the role that elasticity and market inefficiencies might play in your answer.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:04:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 3:30:27 PM, 06yangji wrote:
I agree about what you are saying regarding that the avoidance of deadweight loss might not justify the the wealth distribution, or public good that can be done through taxes, by the pooling of resources. I personally I'm not a libertarian or anarchist, therefore it was only a suggestion. Therefore, continuing your thoughts about taxation, could you frame a principle, or maybe a set of principles, where it would be most helpful to future generations in finding the balance between collective good and individual benefit in the context of taxation. As well, what are your opinions on the abolition of minimum wages?

P.S. If you wish, please incorporate the role that elasticity and market inefficiencies might play in your answer.

I'd really need to write a giant paper to fully describe my thoughts on these issues. As They are very complicated, as you are evidently well aware.

The condensed version is this: I think a tax code should be as simple as possible, while striving to be balanced. It should also reflect its society's willingness and ability to provide public goods. I think some countries may be willing to fund more social services through higher taxes than others, and I think that's basically a matter of cultural preference. In other words, I don't think there is some perfect ideal balance between the two extremes of no deadweight loss and backbreaking taxes. It all depends on what you consider necessary, like education, national defense, health care, etc.

As for minimum wage, I am opposed to abolishing it. Labor (or leisure, depending on how you want to look at it) generally has a fairly low price elasticity, meaning that most people work somewhere around 40 hour weeks, and increasing or decreasing their wage doesn't really drastically impact that figure. Obviously having a minimum wage in theory creates some unemployment. But I think that by and large, this effect is small compared to the benefit of ensuring that all workers earn a living wage.

From a broader viewpoint, I think the reason things like taxation and minimum wage are necessary is because unregulated capitalism allows and encourages wealth to accumulate at the top. Basically we accept market inefficiencies because the alternative is a technically more efficient society, but one where all the wealth is concentrated at the top. I really believe the reason Marx was wrong about the inevitability of a proletariat revolution is because governments started lightly regulating economies to counteract this natural tendency.
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:13:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 7:56:31 PM, 06yangji wrote:
The scenario is the following: a century ship has somehow survived to land at an alternative earth like planet. It carries with it material capable of a viable human gene pool and an AI that has the stored cumulative technical knowledge of human society up to 2015. The AI is capable of teaching and raising these first humans to adulthood for the first generation, at which point they will be be required to further procreate on their own with the AI still remaining as a source of technical knowledge. My question is during this period, what guiding principles would most likely ensure an ideal society in the following:

1. Continued survival of the species
2. Continued (disregarding the speed) of technological innovation
3. Continued development of society beliefs towards the following goals
- Minimal corruption
- Minimal crime
- Ever improving opportunities for social mobility
4. Continued expansion (i.e. a mix of conservation, sustainability and space colonization)
5. Continued evolution of the species

Please provide answers and suggestions to further refine the questions.

How bout this? Strive for diversity.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
06yangji
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:18:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I certainly agree with the accumulation of wealth at the top idea, and have thought about this deeply in the past as well. Given that the three primary forms of wealth accumulation are investment (bearing risk), employment income (including entrepreneurial innovation, and inheritance, and both investment and employment income are positive aspects for growth, than perhaps a guiding principle for a new society would be to focus on the taxation in terms of inheritance, or a limitation on how much of a percentage that a descendant can draw upon the inherited funds. In this, perhaps a valid scheme might be something that Canada has, called the RRSP (please look up if you are not familiar before responding), but applied to inheritances. Thus, allowing investment of the funds and at the same time limits wealth disparity, therefore eliminating the need for wealth distribution through the use of a complex tax regime.
06yangji
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:23:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Aside:

I had always thought that the problem with marxism is that it assumed that individuals are able to have the foresight in order to see the benefits that self control would have on the overall society, thus, in turn benefiting oneself in a circular fashion.
06yangji
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:28:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reply to diversity:

Certainly inclusion and thus diversity would be a good suggestion. But, the need for diversity is more a result of the suppression of one homogeneous by another homogeneous group in the first place. Thus, I would think one would come up with a way to prevent groups becoming homogeneous in the first place, if given the ability to start fresh. As an example, maybe one of the principles that are taught the these new humans would be: "mating with those that differ from your group will strengthen your clan (descendents)".

P.s. if someone can phrase this in a biblical or profound way, that be much appreciated.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:47:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am a proponent of the following principle for the creation of an ideal society.

John Rawl's Principle of Impartiality

'When setting the rules and principles of a society, we should do so from a completely impartial perspective; not from the perspective of the rich, nor from the poor, nor the whites, nor the blacks etc...'

To envisage this principle, imagine that you are a soul that is looking down on society from the metaphysical realm, just before you are placed in a human body. You have one chance to modify society in any way, but there's a catch... You do not know what class, race, gender or identity you will be in this society. With this uncertainty, you will act completely impartially, the effect being that you will attempt to design a society that equally benefits everyone no matter the class, gender, race or any other attribute. You cannot be biased because you will not know what type of person you will become in this society.
06yangji
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:49:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 4:47:37 PM, Philocat wrote:
I am a proponent of the following principle for the creation of an ideal society.

John Rawl's Principle of Impartiality

'When setting the rules and principles of a society, we should do so from a completely impartial perspective; not from the perspective of the rich, nor from the poor, nor the whites, nor the blacks etc...'

To envisage this principle, imagine that you are a soul that is looking down on society from the metaphysical realm, just before you are placed in a human body. You have one chance to modify society in any way, but there's a catch... You do not know what class, race, gender or identity you will be in this society. With this uncertainty, you will act completely impartially, the effect being that you will attempt to design a society that equally benefits everyone no matter the class, gender, race or any other attribute. You cannot be biased because you will not know what type of person you will become in this society.

I think that's what i'm looking for with the question i posed.