Difference between revisions of "David Brin/The Ultimate Goal"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with '{| style="background: #ccffcc; font-size: smaller; align: center;" border=1 width=40% align=right |- |Category:licensedCategory:notGNU * '''License''': This text has been...')
 
m (Reverted edits by Willis703763 (Talk) to last revision by Woozle)
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{| style="background: #ccffcc; font-size: smaller; align: center;" border=1 width=40% align=right
+
{{David Brin/Political Totemism/navbox|2006-03-12 The Ultimate Goal}}
−
|-
 
−
|[[Category:licensed]][[Category:notGNU]]
 
−
* '''License''': This text has been copied to {{SITENAME}} with the permission of the author, [[David Brin]] ([http://davidbrin.com official web site])
 
−
* '''Indexing''': This article is formally indexed at [[2006-03-12 The Ultimate Goal]]
 
−
* '''Series''':
 
−
{{David Brin/Political Totemism/navlist|**}}
 
−
|}
 
 
In the [[David Brin/Models, Maps and Visions of Tomorrow|previous section]], we covered a short list of unconventional questions designed to avoid the stereotyped totems of typical political argument, and instead dive much deeper, to explore <i>root attitudes.</i> No doubt there are many other questions which might illuminate the opinions of diverse people heretofore trapped by the old, linear (left v. right) model.  The objective was to provide room so that differences and quirks, as well as various styles of madness, might stand alone for inspection, unshaded and unsheltered by their neighbors.
 
In the [[David Brin/Models, Maps and Visions of Tomorrow|previous section]], we covered a short list of unconventional questions designed to avoid the stereotyped totems of typical political argument, and instead dive much deeper, to explore <i>root attitudes.</i> No doubt there are many other questions which might illuminate the opinions of diverse people heretofore trapped by the old, linear (left v. right) model.  The objective was to provide room so that differences and quirks, as well as various styles of madness, might stand alone for inspection, unshaded and unsheltered by their neighbors.
  
Line 155: Line 148:
  
 
More on this later.
 
More on this later.
 +
==Reader Comments==
 +
''from the original posting at LRC''
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=196 Kristan Overstreet] wrote at March 13, 2006 8:17 PM</p>
 +
<blockquote>This essay offers nothing for persons like myself, who deny utopia and who do not believe in the perfectability of humanity.</blockquote>
 +
 +
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=460 Nathan Pannbacker] wrote at March 14, 2006 3:31 AM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>I do not believe in utopia, but believe that we do have much potential to improve our current society.  Perhaps mine is an ironic viewpoint, for I believe that while rejecting utopia, one must never cease striving towards it.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Nevertheless this essay is interesting.  In addition to raising some thought-provoking questions and attempting to answer them, it was written in an interesting and sometimes downright humorous way that few political-oriented documents are.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=343 David Brin] wrote at April 21, 2006 2:23 AM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>Exactly!  You guys demonstrate two of the basic political personalities.  Cynicism and modernism.  Cynics learn on the playground, early, to snarl with a curled lip at kids who express eagerness to improve, even when they achieve their goals.  It wins points... but it'  a silly basis for fostering progress.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Modernists have a different madness, a belief in incremental improvability that would have been deemed insane in most human cultures, when there were so few modalities to use in pursuing that goal.  Today we DO have a myriad modalities and have improved more that all other generations combined.  Yet try persuading a cynic!</p>
 +
 +
<p>This leaves out the third general class, of romantic utopians... by far the worst and most dangerous.  They believe in improving humans and humanity via drastic experimental surgery!  Yipes!  From Marxists to Randroids, they have a "way" and heaven help any society where the romantics take over.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Liberal modernism is the root of markets, wherein self-improvement AND social improvement take place via incremental creativity in goods, services and solutions.  It it TOTALLY illogical for a "libertarian" not to be a modernist... yet most are not.  As I said, this runs deeper than logic.  It's personality.  The movement is controlled by fanatics WHO DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN IT!</p>
 +
 +
<p>Today, modernism is under seige by romantics of left, right, whatever.  But it must be allowed to move ahead.  The crux?  Either we improve or we die.</p>
 +
 +
<p>drop by http://www.davidbrin.blogspot.com/  !</p>
 +
 +
<p>db</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=196 Kristan Overstreet] wrote at April 21, 2006 12:07 PM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>This doesn't change the fact that your article is based upon the eventual change of human nature. I believe that human nature has not changed a bit in all of recorded history; we have just made some improvements in dealing with it.</p>
 +
 +
<p>There is no space in your article for the viewpoint that human beings default to being petty, selfish, sadistic and corrupt, that a perfect system is impossible while this nature presists, and that the best we can do is channel these urges in directions where they will do the most good and least harm.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=568 Michael Coffee] wrote at April 25, 2006 12:21 PM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>I don't identify with any of the catagories. I just want folks to stop bullying each other. I also don't believe that freedom requires a change in human nature. I think freedom is an individuals natural state. 'Improvement' is a very subjective word. I agree that basic human nature is fundamentally unchanged since before the first tools. Technological and cultural 'improvement' has happened in fits and starts, though.</p>
 +
 +
<p>People don't have to change from everybody being 'bad' to everybody being 'good' for liberty to succeed. Just attacking peaceful, honest people should be made illegal for everybody, and enforced equally. If the option of the legal authority to impose your will on others is removed; and all theft, assault, fraud, etc., become crimes prosecuted by law, then society will necessarily become more civil.</p>
 +
 +
<p>'offended' is completely subjective, too. "Thou shalt not change what belongs to someone else against their will and without their consent." (you need both to allow for surprise parties and such; they may still want something that they didn't consent to; or change may occur that ) would be a more objective and universal law. Then the 'jury', when necessary, would have only to prove ownership, the change wrought, and the fact that the owner didn't want the change. Then the one who made the change would have to make the owner 'whole'. It would cover fraud, too; since the 'victim' actually owned what was agreed to, and the 'change' was the difference between the agreement and the performance.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Anyway, it would be a start.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=568 Michael Coffee] wrote at April 25, 2006 12:24 PM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>I meant</p>
 +
<p>....or change may occur that the owner likes, or is indifferent to, even though they didn't consent to it.)</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=682 Brent Miller] wrote at June 10, 2006 1:35 PM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>I completely agree with Kristan.</p>
 +
<p>While our culture and technology has evolved, the fundamental nature of human beings has not.  Plato and Socrates were complaining about corruption in democracy 2,300 years ago.  Today we have cars, the internet, and I-Pods... but we still have corruption in democracy.  I have the sneaking suspicion - and a number of anthropoligists I have read about would agree - that our amazing social progress over the past 6,000 years has more to do with the evolution of technology than the evolution of human nature.</p>
 +
<p>So, until we can change human nature via psychological training or genetic manipulation (QUITE un-libertarian), we will never have a utopian society.  Alas, we must be content to make small gains here and there, knowing that we will never be perfect.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=24 Timothy West] wrote at June 11, 2006 12:50 AM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>eh. I'm overloading on this stuph.</p>
 +
<p>you know what was good about MY day? First day without chemo drugs and radiation treatments in 34 days. :D</p>
 +
<p>I think a lot about how the US and the LP could be better, but today I'm thinking it's more cool that I feel better for the first time in a long time.</p>
 +
<p>self serving but accurate.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=196 Kristan Overstreet] wrote at June 13, 2006 11:37 AM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>Thanks for putting my being stranded in Dallas with no auto transmission this past weekend in perspective, Tim.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=810 Eric Downes] wrote at August 25, 2006 5:37 PM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>One need not believe in a fundamental change in human nature to
 +
appreciate what David Brin is saying, I think.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Has anyone here ever tutored kids?  Especially kids who have a
 +
very different background than yours (e.g. inner city or indian res. or
 +
rich urbanite or whatever)  Oh you should.  i did this for a brief stint
 +
in highschool and again in college.</p>
 +
 +
<p>I observed that the environment in which a child develops strongly
 +
influences how trusting (s)he is of others and ** how much patience
 +
they have to learn **.  I am not advocating environmental
 +
determinism by any means, but the economic and social
 +
environment in which you develop helps certain innate qualities
 +
shine through or smolder within.  It is exactly this kind of social
 +
environment we are really trying to improve through our effforts at
 +
attaining more freedom.  So, no, utopias don't exist, and human
 +
nature doesn't change, but there are processes of innovation and
 +
validation that allows the state in which we live to improve.</p>
 +
 +
<p>And thus hopefully our great-grandchildren wil look back and laugh
 +
at our silly notions (while also acknowledging our earnest efforts), not
 +
because they are innately better people, but because the society in
 +
which they grew up has allowed them the freedom and the tools
 +
(e.g. the technology and the knowledge) to *develop* into better
 +
people.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20071010233805/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=803 Tim Crowley] wrote at February 1, 2007 9:47 PM
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>In a way, this points out why the current LP is not very good at forming and maintaining coalitions.</div><p>You must be a member and logged in to add a comment of your own.</p>
 +
</blockquote>

Latest revision as of 22:37, 31 January 2011

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=David_Brin/The_Ultimate_Goal&oldid=21403"