Re: Dreamworlds -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:15:40 03/09/09 Mon
Author: Grumpy
Author Host/IP: 67-61-232-104.cpe.cableone.net / 67.61.232.104
Subject: Re: Dreamworlds
In reply to: Grumpy 's message, "dREAMWORLDS" on 23:04:45 03/04/09 Wed

How can we organize a society such that inequality of outcomes is expected and natural, but the inequality does not require that those at the bottom of the economic ladder be so totally destitute of social goods as to endanger their health and well-being?

Understandably, it is not likely to be a simple process. Simple to describe, perhaps, but the difficulty of implementation probably verges on impossible. The very first step would be to persuade a large majority of the population to agree that not only is it possible, it also is desirable.

The first objection might be that the process would lead to incredible turmoil in society which would disrupt trade and distribution of goods, education, travel and the interchange of ideas, leading to planetwide wars.

Another objection derived from the first is that it simply would not be a worthwhile return on the investment of so much time, energy and expense merely to benefit a group of people who would not reasonably be expected to contribute anything to society under the best of circumstances aside from their sheer existence as a base from which to measure all other people in society.

A very important objection may be the incompatibility of such a secular humanist approach to society with traditional religious belief systems of all sorts. Biases and dogmas born of religion would not be able to survive in the presence of strictly rational approaches to reforming society, and this would be even more true as rationality demonstrated its superiority in dealing with social problems.

Assuming, however, that we wish to proceed with the project, the very first step is to provide every person with as much education as he or she can absorb. Particular emphasis should be placed on the humanities through high school. A sound grasp of the human condition is critical to effectively addressing the types of changes which society will decide are essential or desirable, and which changes need to be made to eliminate undesirable aspects of society. I would anticipate such an educational regimen requiring three or more generations to implement.

Only after such universal education is achieved to the degree possible will we be able to, with any confidence, set forth the principles on which we desire to remold society. I would anticipate a generation or so would be spent in trying out test cases to expose flaws or strengths in the various proposals.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]