4 ms·

>I've been scratching my head for years trying to think of a way out. But I just can't. The most powerful means of distribution and communication in human histo

>I've been scratching my head for years trying to think of a way out. But I just can't. The most powerful means of distribution and communication in human history is either in the hands of inept, short-sighted, unimaginative buffoons or subject to regulation from the same. if you think about it, the Earth's most advanced political systems - the US and the other Western democracies - are just refined implementations of 2000+ years old architectural principles - the Greek's "democracy" (decisions and laws are made by a group of people limited to the size of the big room, the modern refinement of this ancient system is that the members of that group are supposedly elected instead of just being rich and powerful elite of the society) and the Rome's "rule of law" (a law overrides moral and any other motivation/rationale). It's somehow disappointing that human race hasn't been able to come up with (or more precisely - hasn't evolved enough for) a better system. [The most recent attempts to build new, and thought at the time as significantly improved, systems - fascism and socialism/communism - turned out to be catastrophic disasters.] >I'm excited for the practical and technological revolution that upends this control. But I can't imagine what it would look like or how it would work. every time significant technological development happens - be it steam engine, Smith&Wesson, radio, cars, phone, television - it looks like it would change the world and free the people from the control of the system ... well, as it happens, the system just absorbs the technological development as a more advanced tool for the control. And it is happening the same way with the computers and the Internet. All the improvement in the society comes from improvement in people (which of course is frequently technically facilitated and accelerated by the technological advances). "Peasants are also humans, not a property", "women are also humans, not a property", "blacks are also humans, not a property", "gays are also humans", ..., (some day we will even evolve enough to recognize the rights of animals and look back in horror to today's treatment of them as property) - all this is just a change in people minds, not a change in law (which follows the change in minds) and not a change in technology (which though does usually help a lot) >And that leaves me a pretty sad panda while we wait for it. Look at the "Occupiers" - like the new born kittens they don't know what to do, where to go, yet they have already "born" while we're sitting and waiting :) [ note : i don't have illusions - many of the Occupiers will become lawyers, government employees, political officials ... - ie. indistinguishable part of the system and will try to forgot their "stupid mistakes of youth", yet just for a moment they are "born" and it became an undeletable part of the whole human race history and evolution]

sliverstorm 15y ago
some day we will even evolve enough to recognize the rights of animals and look back in horror to today's treatment of them as property I don't know, that one is a little fuzzy. Animals are difficult legally. Pets, for example- if we decide they have their own will and it should be illegal to prevent them from going outside, many of them will just up and get eaten. Now, maybe they have a right to get eaten. But I think it safe to assume they don't want to be eaten. So, it's fuzzy.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >I don't know, that one is a little fuzzy. Animals are difficult legally. Pets, for example- if we decide they have their own will and it should be illegal to prevent them from going outside, many of them will just up and get eaten. we somehow manage it with 2-4 year old children which is what most advanced animals (cats, dogs, dolphins, killer whales, apes) are known to be as smart as (the animals may be even smarter, we just can't yet recognize it and communicate accordingly) Looking back at the history, it was, for example, normal to sell children or to castrate children for specific practical purposes, like Chinese eunuchs or Italian castrati, ie. treating them just like property. Today we are evolved enough to not do it. The same with animals.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    So if we are not to sell pets, does that mean we need to give birth to them ourselves? Obvious situational differences aside, I'd actually hazard that pets aren't too far away from the rights of 2 year olds.
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      >So if we are not to sell pets, does that mean we need to give birth to them ourselves? 200 years ago it would sound like a valid issue about slaves. Today it sound like absurd. As long as you are boxed inside the "owning" paradigm, your issues sound valid and arguments are sound. Yet, once the paradigm shift in people minds happens - from "owning" to "coexistence" - the issues and the arguments would become either moot or absurd.

sliverstorm 15y ago

some day we will even evolve enough to recognize the rights of animals and look back in horror to today's treatment of them as property I don't know, that one is a little fuzzy. Animals are difficult legally. Pets, for example- if we decide they have their own will and it should be illegal to prevent them from going outside, many of them will just up and get eaten. Now, maybe they have a right to get eaten. But I think it safe to assume they don't want to be eaten. So, it's fuzzy.

VladRussian 15y ago
>I don't know, that one is a little fuzzy. Animals are difficult legally. Pets, for example- if we decide they have their own will and it should be illegal to prevent them from going outside, many of them will just up and get eaten. we somehow manage it with 2-4 year old children which is what most advanced animals (cats, dogs, dolphins, killer whales, apes) are known to be as smart as (the animals may be even smarter, we just can't yet recognize it and communicate accordingly) Looking back at the history, it was, for example, normal to sell children or to castrate children for specific practical purposes, like Chinese eunuchs or Italian castrati, ie. treating them just like property. Today we are evolved enough to not do it. The same with animals.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  So if we are not to sell pets, does that mean we need to give birth to them ourselves? Obvious situational differences aside, I'd actually hazard that pets aren't too far away from the rights of 2 year olds.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    >So if we are not to sell pets, does that mean we need to give birth to them ourselves? 200 years ago it would sound like a valid issue about slaves. Today it sound like absurd. As long as you are boxed inside the "owning" paradigm, your issues sound valid and arguments are sound. Yet, once the paradigm shift in people minds happens - from "owning" to "coexistence" - the issues and the arguments would become either moot or absurd.