Thread: Austrian Politican Speaks candidly

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think the society is not mentally ready for that kind of perception yet.

Do you seriously believe the society will ever be 'mentally ready' for that kind of perception? 100 years from now, 500, 1000? No, really?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

If you want to get to the stars you have to have a reliable drive.

I don't think that breakthroughs happen because of some 'reliable drive' but often in spite of them.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Seriously, there is a lot of debates around why do we need a space program if we still have hungry people on our own planet. So, yes, we're far far away from not needing the cr@p yet.

No, we need to provide means of getting (earning) food for everyone and stop worrying about that. ))) Food is plenty right now.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Do you seriously believe the society will ever be 'mentally ready' for that kind of perception? 100 years from now, 500, 1000? No, really?

It's hard to predict. What is the trend? There always were people who needed 'interesting' life and 'boring' life. I think what we see today comparing to 1000 years ago is:

1. There are visibly more people who prefer 'interesting' over 'boring'.
2. There are visibly more people who prefer 'moderately interesting' over 'boring'.
3. The applications for those people have shifted significantly from military to creative.
4. Even if you're a 'moderately interesting'/'boring' type, you have to say in your job interview that you'd prefer a 'challenging' project even if it pays less. And a perception is a reality. (TM)

So, I think the vector is clearly visible. Will there ever be the mental readiness for the entire society? You got me.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't think that breakthroughs happen because of some 'reliable drive' but often in spite of them.

Yes and no. Some breakthroughs which are not supported by the society are lost too.

Originally Posted by Ramil

No, we need to provide means of getting (earning) food for everyone and stop worrying about that. ))) Food is plenty right now.

It is, but then there's a question of clothes. Then the personal security. [And then everything up the ladder.] Example: South Africa - plenty of what not, but the escalation of crime and violence is unbelievable. It's not a secret that many of the fields in the third-world countries yield some type of drugs, while the people in the same country are short of food. So, let's hand out the food to everyone? Not that simple.

#ref no. 1:

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It's hard to predict. What is the trend? There always were people who needed 'interesting' life and 'boring' life. I think what we see today comparing to 1000 years ago is:

1. There are visibly more people who prefer 'interesting' over 'boring'.
2. There are visibly more people who prefer 'moderately interesting' over 'boring'.
3. The applications for those people have shifted significantly from military to creative.
4. Even if you're a 'moderately interesting'/'boring' type, you have to say in your job interview that you'd prefer a 'challenging' project even if it pays less. And a perception is a reality. (TM)

So, I think the vector is clearly visible. Will there ever be the mental readiness for the entire society? You got me.

Your opinions are subjective since we don't know such details about common folk that lived 1000 years ago, but from the records that have survived the time I see that human nature didn't change all that much and neither did their motives. Good old seven deadly sins still rule the world and they will be in 1000 years methinks. This won't leave much room for romantics.

Yes and no. Some breakthroughs which are not supported by the society are lost too.

But then we wouldn't have called them 'breakthroughs'

It is, but then there's a question of clothes. Then the personal security. [And then everything up the ladder.] Example: South Africa - plenty of what not, but the escalation of crime and violence is unbelievable. It's not a secret that many of the fields in the third-world countries yield some type of drugs, while the people in the same country are short of food. So, let's hand out the food to everyone? Not that simple.

see ref no.1 don't you think it's a classic example of mutually-exclusive paragraphs (TM) ? You don't believe in humankind any more than I do, do you?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Your opinions are subjective since we don't know such details about common folk that lived 1000 years ago, but from the records that have survived the time I see that human nature didn't change all that much and neither did their motives. Good old seven deadly sins still rule the world and they will be in 1000 years methinks. This won't leave much room for romantics.

Ah, now I see what you meant as I was talking about something completely different. As an example, take yourself, me, and Hanna. What would all of us be most likely doing back then? Perhaps 90% of chance - we'd be peasants and produce food. Not much room for anything else. What we call today 'culture' existed only for the aristocrats. All the interests and honour belonged to them. But look, nowdays we all talk about the stars, the ecology, the justice, the brainwashing, and what not. That's objective.

Originally Posted by Ramil

But then we wouldn't have called them 'breakthroughs'

But they still happen and the society should be mentally ready to accept those things.

Originally Posted by Ramil

don't you think it's a classic example of mutually-exclusive paragraphs (TM) ? You don't believe in humankind any more than I do, do you?

Yes, I probably didn't express myself correctly. It's not about the belief in the humankind, it's more like a belief in the technological advancement and the desire for the comfort in a good and responsible sense. Consider the less advantaged 'poor countries'. Can you make a list of 10 items you think prevent them from living the quality of life comparable to the Western democracies? (Please, do not include items similar to 'The US exploits those countries unfairly and keeps them poor intentionally' kind of anti-globalist crap. Thanks in advance. )

Originally Posted by Crocodile

What would all of us be most likely doing back then? Perhaps 90% of chance - we'd be peasants and produce food. Not much room for anything else.

No, I'd probably be a nomad and spend my life on a horseback burning and looting peasants. A very interesting life. )))

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It's not about the belief in the humankind, it's more like a belief in the technological advancement and the desire for the comfort in a good and responsible sense.

But what about 'reliable drives'? Technology advances would mean an automatic tummy scratcher with remote control and pseudo AI according to you. It would mean virtual reality networks where the majority of humankind would spend their lives in imagined worlds. It's all for comfort, after all. Then - simply implanted electrodes in the satisfaction centers of human brain. Technology advancement does not always mean progress.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Consider the less advantaged 'poor countries'. Can you make a list of 10 items you think prevent them from living the quality of life comparable to the Western democracies? (Please, do not include items similar to 'The US exploits those countries unfairly and keeps them poor intentionally' kind of anti-globalist crap. Thanks in advance. )

Well, not US alone ))) but generally the policy of simply extracting natural resources without giving anything in return.
Developed countries could boost their industry and economy by building power plants, industry and infrastructure, providing know-hows and education in return but who would want that if everything can be taken virtually for free?
How very moral and democratic.

If these countries are simply left alone then the only thing they would need is time. They will do everything by themselves with time. But again -- who in the democratic world would want (and allow) that?

Originally Posted by Ramil

No, I'd probably be a nomad and spend my life on a horseback burning and looting peasants. A very interesting life. )))

Ok, so you just supported what I said that most applications for those who wanted the 'interesting life' were some kind of military applications: army, pirates, etc.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Then - simply implanted electrodes in the satisfaction centers of human brain.

Yeah, I know you like bringing that danger on. But let's face it - nobody presented a sufficient proof that would be the way the humankind would adopt en mass. The drugs (=the chemical technology known for ages) allows the users a similar effect, but it's not heavily used by most people. So, I don't think the 'electrodes' issue is that serious. On the contrary, I think the way the technology goes is satisfaction of the senses on a new level. But that's another story.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, not US alone ))) but generally the policy of simply extracting natural resources without giving anything in return. [...] How very moral and democratic.

No quite so. They get in return what they buy - the weapons to fight each other. They don't buy food, infrastructure, education. Is that the evil US forces them do so?

Originally Posted by Ramil

If these countries are simply left alone then the only thing they would need is time. They will do everything by themselves with time.

You have to elaborate on the benefits of that plan. What is obvious is that beforehand they killed each other with more primitive weapons and nowdays the weapons they use are more deadly. I don't see any significant progress. Take the South Africa for example. Before the very recently, the bantu people had a high crime rate in their bantustans. That was explained by the fact that they are not given the equal opportunity. Nowdays they have equal rights, so these days the level of crime in the entire country has set the world record. So, it's not that simple.

Originally Posted by Ramil

But again -- who in the democratic world would want (and allow) that?

I didn't get that. African nations export oil and other raw materials to the world market. That oil and raw materials are bought by the 'developed' countries who pay back their money and provide other benefits according to the market prices. The African nations then purchase weapons from the 'developed' countries for the fair market prices and subsequently kill each other. The local warlords ruthlesly rule thier tribes and the so-called 'countries'. Whoever is lucky enough to get any kind of education flees to the West to get a decent life for himself and his family. I met several black professionals from Africa who spoke Russian reasonably well as they got their degrees in Lumumba University in Moscow. Their opportunities in Africa are very limited as the local governments do not invest anything in the infrastructure. The infrastructure is either built mostly by the Western volunteers or is paid by the Western idealists or remains legacy from the Cold War era. I can hardly see your point.