From: Waldemar Ingdahl (wingdahl@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 12 1999 - 10:30:48 MDT
SIGH!:-(
One of the main problems of modernity has been in my opinion the lust of
modernist ideologies to conduct a "coup d'école" through the means of
compulsory schooling, were entire generations have been forced to learn the
same thing and NO place was given for diversity or alternal forms of
education.
>Teach rationalism in school (arguments against religion etc.
>should be mandatory classes). If parents try to sabotage this,
>they should receive a stern warning, after which their ass
>would be kicked with appropriate force.
Why rationalism? Do you mean a strict Carthesian rationalism (there are
various kinds of rationalism too, you see)? If so I'm going to have my kid
kicked out of school quickly. Why arguments AGAINST religion, is atheism
mandatory in civilized countries? If a compulsury schooling is to be upheld
(I abhor it) it really, really has to be neutral on all these matters
because it has to give the same education to ALL kids- but kids are
different and come from different environments (and their parents have
different demands).
>Self-defense/mental empowerment classes for everyone, from
>a very early age (so that by the time you graduate, you're
>practically a Jedi Master). Teach responsible use of firearms
>as well as martial arts.
Hey, what if I am a pacifist and completely detest violence and weapons. Do
I have to let my kid learn about it?
>Proper, hands-on sex education.
Ditto (and what about this hands-on thing?)
>Gender stereotypes should be avoided as much as possible;
>the aim is to create a more androgyne society.
WHOSE aim is it to create a more androgyne society? And why? I personally
will give my kid a masculine education if its a boy and a feminine if its a
girl (but then what I mean with those terms might be slightly deviant from
the norm)
Once again there is a danger in limiting education, it closes opportunities
for students to get into the areas of their choice.
Education today is aimed to create people for the system. Opening up the
compulsory schools will create a system for the people.
> > Science/Space:
> >
> > A Manned/Womaned landing on Mars by 2010.
>
>Self-sustained colonies on the Moon, Mars and/or
>in "free space" by 2020-30.
JYMDPJOJEKT! Why these space programs? Either they are profitable and then
they are not the government's (or a party's) concern or they are not and
then they should be stopped.
>Increase funding for nanotech, genetic engineering
>and other (potentially) transhuman technologies.
If nanotech is going to be so profitable, private investers could invest in
it
>Manhattan project for human uploading.
Would really everybody be interested in financing this through his/hers/vers
tax bill.
>Intelligence augmentation & life extension to become
>national priorities.
Another set of national priorities, but would people really be interested in
it.
>Cryonics to receive X billion research budget and
>full legal status (recognized as a potentially life-saving
>procedure, so no more autopsies, delays in hospitals
>or other bureaucratic, deathist nonsense).
Ouch, that X billion has been proven to be VERY, VERY costly to the
taxpayers. And there is a limit to even my disposition to pay for cryonics.
Cryonics are not a matter for the government.
>Justice:
>
>Automate the legal system & prisons as much as possible.
>No more physical contact between inmates, only minimal
>and heavily supervised contact between inmates and guards.
>Standard senstences, no juries, binding precedent, no public
>trials etc. (see previous posts on this topic).
Why not allow several legal systems?
>Legalize all victimless crime.
OK, I'm right with you on this one.
>Get tough on real crime (an eye for an eye).
OK, but why "eye for an eye"?
>Curb unwanted (illegal) immigration, while attracting people
>who are willing and able to contribute to the economy, and
>don't cause trouble.
What is unwanted immigration? Illegal immigration in most rich countries
today is: people that will have to compensate their lower skills with lower
pay in order to compete. And really if I'm just a hobo but still would like
to hike around in the U.S., Sweden, Japan or Cameroon "just because I like
it" I should be able to do so. Open up the world for everybody.
>Economy:
>
>Abolition of work through extensive automation. The aim is
>to have generous standard welfare for everyone, while those
>who want more can have their own (liberal) sub-economy.
Work will never be abolished. It is economically impossible (well, you could
be dead...). Who is going to pay for the standard welfare and what is
generous? What if I'd like my own socialist sub-economy?
>Taxes are gradually abolished as level of automation increases.
>State plays (responsible) pimp and dope dealer (etc.) to
>partially finance the transition from wage slave society to
>automated welfare society.
I don't understand. Clarify, please.
>Healthcare:
>
>Free, high-quality healthcare for everyone through automation
>and economies of scale.
But diseconomies of scale are shown in the health care sector! Who is going
to pay for it, automation doesn't solve the problem of costs, it just
changes it?
>General:
>
>Make tiered voting system; the more tax you pay (or in some
>other way contribute to society), the more voting points you
>get. Actually you'd want to create a kind of meritocracy/
>technocracy. The right to vote is something that has to be
>earned, just like a driver's license.
What is the standard, why that specific standard? Why should I contribute to
society? The problem is still with this system that some people will have
the political power to force others. I'd rather prefer to be a consumer. The
citizen votes every four years, the consumer votes every minute.
OK, I hope that you understand that I not out here to smack you on your head
but to construct a fruitful discussion and to point out some dangers in your
replies.
My main criticism is that your response feels so (don't get insulted)
dated... so very much 20th century. It is inherent of course in discussing a
political party's program. But the feeling that I've gotten in discussing
these things on the Extropy and Omega lists is that we really have more
aptly answers for the future, a future that will be very diverse. In fact I
think we should be talking about the futures of the menkinds.
Best regards
Waldemar Ingdahl
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:30 MST