Some basic rules for the American Congress.

[Chessie]

I think we're at a point where someone in the world needs some accountability for what they focus their attention on and I'd love some feedback in the creation of a system to do that. I realize it's a bit silly but lets try a piece of social engineering.

Congress is denied the right to act on ANYTHING until the following things are worked out. What would be the consequences?

Job creation.
Universal health care.
Bringing every troop home and ending all of the various wars.
Reversing the debt.
Curing all the diseases on earth. Do not TELL me we don't have the technology and money to do it. It exists.

The things they would be disallowed from making any mention of (on penalty of losing a finger each time) until those things above are solved are,

Gay Marriage.
Copyright law.
Sex and reproductive law.
Subsidies for farming or oil.
Sexting.
The spread of Islam.
Organic foods.
Internet law.
Domestic surveillance.
Terrorism.
Prison construction.

I realize it's a moot point as this time to say 'We control the government'. We don't. Lets be honest here, our government is literally beyond control of any individual or group of persons on this earth and collapse is inevitable. There's no fixing it from inside the system. In two years the projected national debt will be larger than the GDP.

That's not something you can fix with elections or peaceful protests. I wish it were. I kinda like where i live.

 

[Edith]

You have a lot of rules, Chessie.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Should the rule really be to prioritise the interest of some individuals over others? *wiggles eyebrows* I do get your point however (mostly).

 

[Annabreher]

Agreed. But [gasp] that means Congress has to WORK. On HOLIDAYS. For...other people. Oh no!

-Anna

 

[Candice_XX]

Should the rule really be to prioritise the interest of some individuals over others?

No, as I get it from what Chessie wrote, the rule is to prioritise the needs of the society as a total over the needs of some social groups.



[MENTION=2575]Chessie[/MENTION] I am with you! I really wish that something could change in the USA because all these things really affect my life down here, you can not imagine how much.

 

[InvisibleJim]

No, as I get it from what Chessie wrote, the rule is to prioritise the needs of the society as a total over the needs of some social groups.

Are these items truely not the needs of society?

Gay Marriage.
Copyright law.
Sex and reproductive law.
Subsidies for farming or oil.
Sexting.
The spread of Islam.
Organic foods.
Internet law.
Domestic surveillance.
Terrorism.
Prison construction.

Are these items truely not the more 'focused' needs of some social groups?

Job creation.
Universal health care.
Bringing every troop home and ending all of the various wars.
Reversing the debt.
Curing all the diseases on earth. Do not TELL me we don't have the technology and money to do it. It exists.

All of these issues and more are merely a subset of 'All societal needs'.

 

[Chessie]

Um...actually I'm just gonna say 'No. All the things in the first list are a lot more important in both the long and short runs.' A LOT more important. The world can get by another five years without updating Copyright law or putting more FBI agents on wiretap duty.

America isn't going to get by five more years without ending the wars, making some jobs, reversing the debt, and creating a functioning healthcare system. We face plague, famine, and economic collapse. Gay marriage isn't going to cause that.

So...no. The list stands unchanged.

 

[bamf]

If we get rid of all diseases it would be detrimental for our population.

 

[~jet]

If we get rid of all diseases it would be detrimental for our population.

The solution to that is more empowerment to women around the world (wherever this happens, fertility drops immensely) and proper education for all.

 

[Candice_XX]

[MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION] No, as you say, items as internet are the needs of the society and in the long term they may result in progress for everyone.

The difference is that items as the function of the economy are more profound and general because they appeal to the survival of the society. They are not a subset of all societal needs, to my view. They are the elements which construe a state's profile and philosophy. First we decide if we give food to whom and how and then we decide the species of that food.
These items do not have an immediate effect on everybody's life but they are more important from specific regulations, because they are the base on which other structures are built. For example no gay will die if he doesn't get married, in spite the fact that this is more likely to cause a protest in the streets, but declaring war builds a certain profile for your society that will define the general lines for every other action.
One possible scenario is that declaring war means that you are a conservative and you do not give rights to gays. There is the possibility that you declare war and you give rights to gays for political reasons, but every choice you do on the top level of regulating individuals' life is based on your approach to the economic system, global resources management, how much is health and everyday's meal of an individual important to your social structure.

Chessie speaks for giving importance to the sustainability of the system in the long term, and that demands changes that will make every person's life sustainable. And she says that we may solve this issue first because it is urgent and fundamental for the rest. Most of the rest are a consequence of the basic economic and social choices. That is how I get what Chessie says.

To my opinion now, InvisibleJim, all of these items can be treated at the same time. This penalty Chessie poses is because she sees that politicians will not change any of the difficult issues because they do not have interest in doing so and I agree with her on that. It is more likely that terrorism law will take shape, than thinking about how we can change all the causes of the terrorism. Nevertheless, what is happening, in Europe at least, is that the Parliament makes progress regarding certain issues (broadband internet) while others it can not even touch (mergers in one member state). I am appraising whatever progress can be made, even in an assymetric way. But I see that it is not holistic and comprehensive unless more fundamental issues are solved.

 

[Candice_XX]

If we get rid of all diseases it would be detrimental for our population.

The human society has proven more flexible than the Darwinian theory.

 

[Detective Conan]

If we get rid of all diseases it would be detrimental for our population.

Agreed, and I think that anything detrimental for our population (whatever would allow it to continue growing) is very detrimental to the quality of life all over the planet.

The solution to that is more empowerment to women around the world (wherever this happens, fertility drops immensely) and proper education for all.

Perhaps, but I have a strong feeling there are far easier solutions to correct population problems.

 

[Chessie]

Population-wise the number of people who die from disease specifically has dropped in a way that would be considered catastrophic if we take the model of population growth as based solely on expansion on a logarithmic scale.

Thankfully we know that populations don't expand that way. The rate of population growth globally is already decreasing despite the staggering decreases in violence that this century has seen against people. Yes, I know, what a thing to say when you get to watch CNN and twenty people die in bombs...but think of this. How many of your family personally have died in warfare?

Most people might have one or two. There was a time where literally every person in a family would die violently and at a young age (or what we consider a young age). What we think of old age nowadays would mark us as Methuselahs just a few hundred years ago.

On the whole if we mean to fix the problems of civilization then the ones that don't matter need a backseat.

 

[~jet]

Population-wise the number of people who die from disease specifically has dropped in a way that would be considered catastrophic if we take the model of population growth as based solely on expansion on a logarithmic scale.

Thankfully we know that populations don't expand that way. The rate of population growth globally is already decreasing despite the staggering decreases in violence that this century has seen against people. Yes, I know, what a thing to say when you get to watch CNN and twenty people die in bombs...but think of this. How many of your family personally have died in warfare?

Most people might have one or two. There was a time where literally every person in a family would die violently and at a young age (or what we consider a young age). What we think of old age nowadays would mark us as Methuselahs just a few hundred years ago.

On the whole if we mean to fix the problems of civilization then the ones that don't matter need a backseat.

Well, that's TRUE, but it could be tru-ER, too... we're already 5 billion people beyond sustainable right now (presuming of course that everyone gets the same quality-of-life as the average american. We're more like 3.5bil beyond sustainable at more modest european standards and 2 billion beyond sustainable if everyone was a dirt farmer with no expectation of utility beyond farming dirt.)

 

[bamf]

The human society has proven more flexible than the Darwinian theory.

I don't know though. Look at Africa. They are destroying what could be sustainable farmland through slash and burn methods to turn forests into lumber and farmland because it's quicker to raise more food in the short term, but it destroys the fertility of the land. Their populations are exploding, and a lot of it has to do with the decline of natural predators, aka disease. Vaccinations have helped create unsustainable populations. Ridiculous amounts of their populations are under the age of something like 25 (I'm sorry that I don't remember exactly, but I know that they have unreasonably high percentages of youth compared to adults). A lot of people die from warfare and diseases that haven't been "cured". Imagine if all of these people lived until the age of 150+, just waiting for the body to rot away because all disease that kills the elderly has been cured. People would die more and more from starvation, or the continent would be destroyed with unsustainable farming, then more starvation. Now imagine every population of the world surviving to 150+. The world could not sustain a population that would not die from anything but extreme old age and murder/killing/suicide. We'd have to expand well beyond Earth to sustain such a population, or implement expensive and advanced technology to make do with what we have.

I'm of the mindset that the more we fight against nature, as in killing off the things that are supposed to kill us, the more suffering we will create.

 

[bickelz]

It's the job of congress to multitask. That's cool you want job creation and reversal of the debt but how do you do that? Cut taxes? That shit don't work but it's by far the most popular solution.

Universal health care? Never happening in the us. At least not until my generation or later is in charge.

Ending all wars? Good luck with that. I don't know if you realize this but we're a bunch of trigger happy, paranoid lunatics who need someone to shoot at because it's the only way we feel comfortable.

Curing disease? The only thing you can do is put money into R&D.

Actually, the minor things you don't want done could be solved in one term or less but you didn't mention environmental/energy policy which is probably the most important thing that has not been put on the table so far. We need to invest into R&D for figuring out alternative forms of energy to replace coal and oil. The killer part is that we have a lot of these technologies ready but they're just a bit too expensive. Wind, wave and solar could give us most of our electricity and nuclear could fill the gap. There's an energy policy.

 

[bickelz]

I don't know though. Look at Africa. They are destroying what could be sustainable farmland through slash and burn methods to turn forests into lumber and farmland because it's quicker to raise more food in the short term, but it destroys the fertility of the land. Their populations are exploding, and a lot of it has to do with the decline of natural predators, aka disease. Vaccinations have helped create unsustainable populations. Ridiculous amounts of their populations are under the age of something like 25 (I'm sorry that I don't remember exactly, but I know that they have unreasonably high percentages of youth compared to adults). A lot of people die from warfare and diseases that haven't been "cured". Imagine if all of these people lived until the age of 150+, just waiting for the body to rot away because all disease that kills the elderly has been cured. People would die more and more from starvation, or the continent would be destroyed with unsustainable farming, then more starvation. Now imagine every population of the world surviving to 150+. The world could not sustain a population that would not die from anything but extreme old age and murder/killing/suicide. We'd have to expand well beyond Earth to sustain such a population, or implement expensive and advanced technology to make do with what we have.

I'm of the mindset that the more we fight against nature, as in killing off the things that are supposed to kill us, the more suffering we will create.

@bamf what is unsustainable is the growth of the population, not just size of the population itself. If we have a steady state population, we could easily figure out logistics for feeding people.

Although, I agree that we have too many humans right now. And no, the solution is not mass murder, it's having less kids. I heard that everybody only had one kid, the population would be back to circa 1800 levels in about 100 years.

But population deflation is dangerous too. Think of how we get to take care of all the baby boomers!

Oh, and gun laws need to be addressed. Like, there were 30,000 people that died in America from firearms in 2007. WTF?

 

[Candice_XX]

I don't know though. Look at Africa. They are destroying what could be sustainable farmland through slash and burn methods to turn forests into lumber and farmland because it's quicker to raise more food in the short term, but it destroys the fertility of the land. Their populations are exploding, and a lot of it has to do with the decline of natural predators, aka disease. Vaccinations have helped create unsustainable populations. Ridiculous amounts of their populations are under the age of something like 25 (I'm sorry that I don't remember exactly, but I know that they have unreasonably high percentages of youth compared to adults). A lot of people die from warfare and diseases that haven't been "cured". Imagine if all of these people lived until the age of 150+, just waiting for the body to rot away because all disease that kills the elderly has been cured. People would die more and more from starvation, or the continent would be destroyed with unsustainable farming, then more starvation.

It's not that Africans they have not be proven flexible, it's USA, Germany, France etc that use Africa and they put them in such a position, to be better for their population to stop growth. Talking for Africa, it is not any Darwinian theory, it is political choice of other nations and not the African ones.
In fact it would be Darwinian choice if only the less worthy were dying but when it comes to humans and you have a disease killing all the village in some place of Earth and another place has no losses, you see that there not such thing as justice which Darwin was seeking to find in the natural process. I am sure some very clever and worthy people have died in lack of medication.
Let's go now to any prosperous and very populated country. How many ugly people can you spot around there? How many fat people? Fat is the number one cause of diseases related to death. The fact that fat people do survive in large amounts is the proof that societies are not following the Darwinian theory (at least when it comes to choose for themselves).

Now imagine every population of the world surviving to 150+. The world could not sustain a population that would not die from anything but extreme old age and murder/killing/suicide. We'd have to expand well beyond Earth to sustain such a population, or implement expensive and advanced technology to make do with what we have.

I agree, especially with that technology part.

I'm of the mindset that the more we fight against nature, as in killing off the things that are supposed to kill us, the more suffering we will create.

I see your point, living in a natural way it is the only way for a sustainable development of our species. But we have to ensure survival. Thank god the first monkey people were not thinking like that and when they were getting ill they were putting herbs on their wounds. The right to fight for survival is a fundamental, universal human right.

 

[bickelz]

Let's go now to any prosperous and very populated country. How many ugly people can you spot around there? How many fat people? Fat is the number one cause of diseases related to death. The fact that fat people do survive in large amounts is the proof that societies are not following the Darwinian theory (at least when it comes to choose for themselves).

Technically, Darwinian theory is about heritable traits. Being fat isn't heritable (the "it runs in the family" is bs, the entire human race is predisposed to obesity).

I see your point, living in a natural way it is the only way for a sustainable development of our species. But we have to ensure survival. Thank god the first monkey people were not thinking like that and when they were getting ill they were putting herbs on their wounds. The right to fight for survival is a fundamental, universal human right.

I think that's a right for humans, as animals but not as people in a civilization.

 

[Candice_XX]

Technically, Darwinian theory is about heritable traits. Being fat isn't heritable (the "it runs in the family" is bs, the entire human race is predisposed to obesity).

The heritable traits are heritable because they are suitable for survival. Fat is not suitable for survival. If you are not convinced about the predisposal for being fat just think about why poeple in civilised societies keep on being ugly or short or weak.

I think that's a right for humans, as animals but not as people in a civilization.

No, you think it in reverse. The fact that we formed a civilisation gives people more rights and does not abstract the ones we have as animals. That's because we have more obligations than the animals.
Civilisations that let their (or other as in the case) people die in the name of a theory or an idea are inferior to the others as to values and advances.