4 ms·

This reminds me of http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html It's easy to pick stuff that a portion of society agrees with you on,

This reminds me of http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html It's easy to pick stuff that a portion of society agrees with you on, like ending drug prohibition, gay marriage, abortion, or immigration. Even more controversial stuff like ending meat-eating or religion will get nods from a few people. I'm not going to mention anything really crazy, since I'll get downvoted as a nut if I do. I don't blame most people for having the same beliefs as everyone around them, and I think the future will feel similarly. But while future societies may not judge us harshly, I think they'll contain things we would judge them for. This is because we don't have the future's technology, so certain decisions are already made for us. Most of us don't even think of them as decisions. For example, we can't easily increase a person's intelligence. If we could, we would have debates on how best to use this technology and whatnot. Then, maybe one day it would be considered a form of abuse to not increase your child's intelligence through drugs or brain implants.

aristus 16y ago
That essay is amazing, but I think it only covers part of the spectrum. Knowing who your parents are is less important today than a couple hundred years ago. It doesn't cripple you socially as it once did. Knowing what material your water pipes are made of has become much more important, now that we're aware of the crippling effects of lead. The present world is greatly influenced by the manipulation of amounts of mass and energy too small to see. We've come to accept this situation without surprise, and we tend to think about emergent information content and not mechanics or chemistry. To a typical Victorian all of that wouldn't be heresy so much as fantastic nonsense.
lionhearted 16y ago
> I'm not going to mention anything really crazy, since I'll get downvoted as a nut if I do. You mean like democracy? Edit: Yup, there's the "downvoted as a nut" - I think voting on what your fellow man can do with his life might be seen as barbaric in the future. Maybe not, but the idea that 51% of people voting in the USA can enforce their will on all 300 million citizens is pretty scary to me...
- shpxnvz 16y ago
  Maybe not, but the idea that 51% of people voting in the USA can enforce their will on all 300 million citizens is pretty scary to me… Luckily that's not quite how it works - we're not a direct democracy. But, even when a majority of representatives attempts to exert their will on us citizens, the scope of their will is limited to the powers explicitly granted them by the constitution and they, within those powers, are further restricted from infringing on our natural and enumerated rights. Certainly, a reasonable argument can be made that the legislature does push the limits with regards to their powers, particularly with respect to the commerce clause, and we do more arguing in defense of our individual rights than I think should be necessary, but all-in-all we're not doing too bad. In any case, we've so far only needed to use our first three boxes [1] in the defense of liberty. I wouldn't consider it a failure until we find need for the fourth. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty Interesting link, thanks for that. My view on governance has evolved as I've gotten older - these days I don't believe in one best form of government, and I think people should generally live under the government that they wish to. Thus, I prefer to see rights reserved to the smallest groups of people practical to make a decision. I'd prefer a lot more decisionmaking to happen at local levels and state levels in the USA, which gives people more options for where they want to live and the kind of government they wish to live under. Large scale, broad legislation almost always winds up with devil's bargains that don't quite suit anyone really well, special interests working in coalitions... it's bad stuff, in my opinion. Of course, everyone agrees with this for policies they'd like to see happen at a local level, and disagrees for policies they think everyone should follow. Drug control - local or national? Well, people who want decriminalization would prefer it locally decided, which makes it effectively almost legal. People against think it needs to be nationally decided to be effective. Labor laws? Pro-labor people want it national, people against want it locally decided. I'd prefer almost everything is locally decided, but of course, most people will argue that their favorite policies really have to happen on a national level that everyone must follow.

aristus 16y ago

That essay is amazing, but I think it only covers part of the spectrum. Knowing who your parents are is less important today than a couple hundred years ago. It doesn't cripple you socially as it once did. Knowing what material your water pipes are made of has become much more important, now that we're aware of the crippling effects of lead. The present world is greatly influenced by the manipulation of amounts of mass and energy too small to see. We've come to accept this situation without surprise, and we tend to think about emergent information content and not mechanics or chemistry. To a typical Victorian all of that wouldn't be heresy so much as fantastic nonsense.

lionhearted 16y ago

> I'm not going to mention anything really crazy, since I'll get downvoted as a nut if I do. You mean like democracy? Edit: Yup, there's the "downvoted as a nut" - I think voting on what your fellow man can do with his life might be seen as barbaric in the future. Maybe not, but the idea that 51% of people voting in the USA can enforce their will on all 300 million citizens is pretty scary to me...

shpxnvz 16y ago
Maybe not, but the idea that 51% of people voting in the USA can enforce their will on all 300 million citizens is pretty scary to me… Luckily that's not quite how it works - we're not a direct democracy. But, even when a majority of representatives attempts to exert their will on us citizens, the scope of their will is limited to the powers explicitly granted them by the constitution and they, within those powers, are further restricted from infringing on our natural and enumerated rights. Certainly, a reasonable argument can be made that the legislature does push the limits with regards to their powers, particularly with respect to the commerce clause, and we do more arguing in defense of our individual rights than I think should be necessary, but all-in-all we're not doing too bad. In any case, we've so far only needed to use our first three boxes [1] in the defense of liberty. I wouldn't consider it a failure until we find need for the fourth. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty Interesting link, thanks for that. My view on governance has evolved as I've gotten older - these days I don't believe in one best form of government, and I think people should generally live under the government that they wish to. Thus, I prefer to see rights reserved to the smallest groups of people practical to make a decision. I'd prefer a lot more decisionmaking to happen at local levels and state levels in the USA, which gives people more options for where they want to live and the kind of government they wish to live under. Large scale, broad legislation almost always winds up with devil's bargains that don't quite suit anyone really well, special interests working in coalitions... it's bad stuff, in my opinion. Of course, everyone agrees with this for policies they'd like to see happen at a local level, and disagrees for policies they think everyone should follow. Drug control - local or national? Well, people who want decriminalization would prefer it locally decided, which makes it effectively almost legal. People against think it needs to be nationally decided to be effective. Labor laws? Pro-labor people want it national, people against want it locally decided. I'd prefer almost everything is locally decided, but of course, most people will argue that their favorite policies really have to happen on a national level that everyone must follow.