Exactly why no social ism works. Capitalism, communism, Georgism, liberalism, Marxism, anarchism, socialism. They’re mostly all good on paper but awful when put into effect because they don’t factor human nature. So long as there is the same trait within that led to our wild success as species number 1, we can never have good ideas play out how they were thought to. Instead we have we have those always looking for advantage to be number 1 of the number 1s. Psychopaths love power and personal security.
And also killing off the less fit if they’re not our own. Especially if resources are at stake. Or general conquest or control over a valley, zone, region, or some other thing for your kin, clan, group, community, eventually country, etc. The same behaviours we still exercise now, whether for political tribe, sport tribe, oil, subculture, parts of Gaza, religion, property portfolio, etc. You see now the etc. is just a long-standing timeline cut short.
Basically if it’s backed by a flag, colours, or other such meaningless symbolism of a group, it’s the underlying human nature still going hard. It is the “this is good for me therefore it is good to commit to” behaviour and the strongest come out on top whether decidedly good or evil.
But we do tend to band together when there’s an immediate threat bigger than ourselves—not like climate change since that’s us and is a slow threat easy to ignore day to day. I think it’s more a self-preservation thing than an everyone else preservation thing though. People jump ship for a better ship all the time, but they’ll fight for the fleet so long as they’re part of it.
And in between that the naive have exoected social ideologies can have any chance of achieving the blueprint of Eutopia they all envisioned. Yet history has only ever constantly said “Nope”.
Arthur C. Clarke said something along the lines of “communism could’ve worked if only they had microchips” meaning that communism had problems with humans. An algorithmic socialism that requires everything to be fair is the only way to do it.
Wouldn’t surprise me if that is how future civilizations (assuming we live that long) handle their administration. Laws are written algorithmically, almost like computer code, and simply translated for laymen to interpret. Maybe with an integrated parser service available to everyone that is capable of answering queries based on the strict programmed definitions it references.
This still invites the very likely possibility of one’s interpretation of a law differing from the intent, but that is already the case today, with the bigger problem being that there are often major disagreements at an institutional level where there should ideally be no uncertainty.
Someone with a provable, undeniable, zero stakes in the outcome of publishing said algorithm, while being of such moral fortitude as to be un-corruptable. IMO, if you find such a person, you’re probably better off just putting them in charge.
Best bet is to raise the bar on any coordinated attempt to sabotage things. Multiple algorithms must be made by distinct parties, and the submissions compared against one another, and somehow averaged out (e.g. multiple running algorithms that vote amongst themselves) so that the only way to game the system is a very large and unlikely conspiracy.
Presumably anyone can, and people democratically vote on which algorithm is used. Direct democracy like this has its problems, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the oligarchy/plutocracy that we’re currently dealing with.
This is the, “If I don’t do it, someone else will,” argument. Which is true.
There is always all least one other ass hole out there.
Exactly why no social ism works. Capitalism, communism, Georgism, liberalism, Marxism, anarchism, socialism. They’re mostly all good on paper but awful when put into effect because they don’t factor human nature. So long as there is the same trait within that led to our wild success as species number 1, we can never have good ideas play out how they were thought to. Instead we have we have those always looking for advantage to be number 1 of the number 1s. Psychopaths love power and personal security.
Communism tends to work pretty well until the US shows up with their military, and stamp it out.
what is “the same trait within that led to our wild success as species number 1”?
i’m think the thing that made the difference was helping the “less fit” so that they could keep and transfer knowledge, do thinking and make tools
And also killing off the less fit if they’re not our own. Especially if resources are at stake. Or general conquest or control over a valley, zone, region, or some other thing for your kin, clan, group, community, eventually country, etc. The same behaviours we still exercise now, whether for political tribe, sport tribe, oil, subculture, parts of Gaza, religion, property portfolio, etc. You see now the etc. is just a long-standing timeline cut short.
Basically if it’s backed by a flag, colours, or other such meaningless symbolism of a group, it’s the underlying human nature still going hard. It is the “this is good for me therefore it is good to commit to” behaviour and the strongest come out on top whether decidedly good or evil.
But we do tend to band together when there’s an immediate threat bigger than ourselves—not like climate change since that’s us and is a slow threat easy to ignore day to day. I think it’s more a self-preservation thing than an everyone else preservation thing though. People jump ship for a better ship all the time, but they’ll fight for the fleet so long as they’re part of it.
And in between that the naive have exoected social ideologies can have any chance of achieving the blueprint of Eutopia they all envisioned. Yet history has only ever constantly said “Nope”.
Arthur C. Clarke said something along the lines of “communism could’ve worked if only they had microchips” meaning that communism had problems with humans. An algorithmic socialism that requires everything to be fair is the only way to do it.
Wouldn’t surprise me if that is how future civilizations (assuming we live that long) handle their administration. Laws are written algorithmically, almost like computer code, and simply translated for laymen to interpret. Maybe with an integrated parser service available to everyone that is capable of answering queries based on the strict programmed definitions it references.
This still invites the very likely possibility of one’s interpretation of a law differing from the intent, but that is already the case today, with the bigger problem being that there are often major disagreements at an institutional level where there should ideally be no uncertainty.
the problem will be the implicit biases of the lawmakers
Who designs the algorithm?
Someone with a provable, undeniable, zero stakes in the outcome of publishing said algorithm, while being of such moral fortitude as to be un-corruptable. IMO, if you find such a person, you’re probably better off just putting them in charge.
Best bet is to raise the bar on any coordinated attempt to sabotage things. Multiple algorithms must be made by distinct parties, and the submissions compared against one another, and somehow averaged out (e.g. multiple running algorithms that vote amongst themselves) so that the only way to game the system is a very large and unlikely conspiracy.
Presumably anyone can, and people democratically vote on which algorithm is used. Direct democracy like this has its problems, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the oligarchy/plutocracy that we’re currently dealing with.
Elon Musk vibe coding with grok.
Extraterrestrial aliens.
Perfect
I will
I’ll only skim a little off the top, promise
Just fractions of a socialism on every socialism. It adds up. I saw it in a movie.