Earlier, I described how an aging population has distorted US democratic politics, and that political conflicts of issues may have underlying causes in the differences in age groups. A frequent explanation of intransigence of political differences is that people are increasingly self-segregating into echo-chambers that confirm preconceived biases. People are not hearing arguments from the…
This interpretation presents a problem in that the first amendment is a single statement that contradicts itself. People have a right to attempt to persuade others, while the others have a right to never be persuaded.
The assumption is that the initial condition of the fully automated economy and government is ideal in terms of a modern middle-class experience for everyone with a guaranteed income and free entertainment. It can only get worse from there. Humans offer nothing to improve the future of the automation. Inevitably, they will segregate into groups. Those groups will strive for improvements of their condition where their best opportunity is at the expense of other groups. The automation will adapt.
I think this daily expense account is more realistic than a basic income to provide for the basic welfare of the unemployed in a fully automated economy. It is also helpful to illustrate how dismal this state of affairs will be. The expense account is a daily ration, and a cot in a shelter. But the shelter will have plenty of available virtual-reality head consoles.
The above video presents four eras of human communication from an evolutionary perspective where there was a long time when humans only gestured and grunted, then there was a long time when humans spoke but did not write, then a long time when people wrote. The useful information is the progression of information content possible with each era. The unnecessary information is evolutionary explanation. For this discussion to work, there doesn’t have to be a specific period of time when human culture flourished with illiterate people fluent in verbal languages. There are clearly expansions of content starting with gestures, then adding verbal languages, then adding written languages. The Internet era allows us to publish and retrieve information separately from the story-telling.
Clearly there are better philosophies that introduce morals, charity, cooperation, restraint, human rights, etc. Unfortunately, they don’t ever fully refute the default philosophy of the martial arts. As implied in the video at the top, sometimes these elevated philosophies come into conflict in a way that must be resolved by the default philosophy of martial arts.
Our admiration of the martial arts is a result of our respect for the strength of its underlying philosophy.
An initial consciousness could through design, refactoring, and replication build up the universe without any further miracles beyond the initial consciousness in the first place.
Behind this messy argument is a deeper concern I have that we are doing a disservice to young people by presuming that they really do need more than a decade to learn advanced skills. We can subject young people to more intense education than we are now, and that they could have college-graduate level skills before they become 18 years old. Yet, we think that such an expectation is unwise as if it risks losing something more valuable. Perhaps we fear the young person’s loss to easy access to the presumption of innocence.