4 ms·

Your answer makes me assume you are well-fed, educated, and housed (you are of course well connected, since you commented on here). From an individualist persp

Your answer makes me assume you are well-fed, educated, and housed (you are of course well connected, since you commented on here). From an individualist perspective, anyone without those things, but who is connected at least a little will probably want them, I would wager. Is your argument based on a belief that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate every human in theory? What do you think needs to be fixed before a higher standard of life for all humans should be considered a goal to progressively strive for?

dgzl 7y ago
> Is your argument based on a belief that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate every human in theory? Not at all what I meant. I think we can accommodate a lot more people. > What do you think needs to be fixed before a higher standard of life for all humans should be considered a goal to progressively strive for? I'm saying that the goals needed to achieve that kind of Utopia don't look like the goals described. I think many people don't want to admit certain policy failures, but they continue on like an addiction, hamstringing genuine efforts. I'm not sure if it's attainable because so many contentious things will have to change before we can even start with the goals described (food/housing/etc.)
- TuringTest 7y ago
  What kind of Utopia is it that doesn't include that every human is healthy, fed, housed, and has access to education and the global network? If you want that outcome to be achieved by a scientific process, you need to include those as long term goals. They may not be intermediate goals (e.g. you might need to temporarily reduce health and access to the global network for some part of the population to send them as volunteer settlers to a space colony), but if you're not measuring them and using their improvement as progress, you cannot guarantee that in the long term the scientific progress will achieve them.

dgzl 7y ago

> Is your argument based on a belief that there are not enough natural resources to accommodate every human in theory? Not at all what I meant. I think we can accommodate a lot more people. > What do you think needs to be fixed before a higher standard of life for all humans should be considered a goal to progressively strive for? I'm saying that the goals needed to achieve that kind of Utopia don't look like the goals described. I think many people don't want to admit certain policy failures, but they continue on like an addiction, hamstringing genuine efforts. I'm not sure if it's attainable because so many contentious things will have to change before we can even start with the goals described (food/housing/etc.)

TuringTest 7y ago
What kind of Utopia is it that doesn't include that every human is healthy, fed, housed, and has access to education and the global network? If you want that outcome to be achieved by a scientific process, you need to include those as long term goals. They may not be intermediate goals (e.g. you might need to temporarily reduce health and access to the global network for some part of the population to send them as volunteer settlers to a space colony), but if you're not measuring them and using their improvement as progress, you cannot guarantee that in the long term the scientific progress will achieve them.