Fuck liberal democracy?

 Anonymous (@) 7 years, 9 months ago

I used to study political philosophy as a hobby about a decade ago but then thought what’s the point since most of the basic points are unanswerable and lead nowhere.

But even still, shouldn’t all political decisions be made via a huge supercomputer? what use is elections or “rights” as we know them?

January 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Anonymous (328) (@) 7 years, 9 months ago ago

Who will own the supercomputers? The same tech giants that willingly cooperate with the same people who have the loudest voice in politics. I don’t think that will change anything.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 9 months ago ago

I figure; when you have 2 distinctly different opinions, then the compromise that both will either be equally satisfied or unsatisfied with is probably the right one :p

I agree with a lot of points that come from both Conservatives and Liberals, their problem is how important they think that opinion is, and by fighting constantly about it nothing ever really gets done.

When people are stuck in that rigid ideological state they refuse to grow, it is an egocentric principle that denies them the ability to even acknowledge the points others are making.

[Hidden]
Slim (2) (@Slim) 7 years, 9 months ago ago

A computer only calculates based on what you tell it, so you dont get past moral/philosophical/political problems.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (175) (@) 7 years, 9 months ago ago

dependent on our current level of computer science. but yes, science stays static, doesn’t it?

that said, I see little wrong in liberal democracy. only chumps deny it.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 9 months ago ago

I agree with these guys^^ A computer can calculate probabilities only, a 70% success rate will automatically be preferred by a computer but the computer does not account for compassion and the human factor.

A scientist is the same; they can only commit as far as the probabilities they calculate, but a religious person has faith, which means they may not have the knowledge or understanding that a scientist has but they have a much greater confidence in what they are making decisions on.

I think there is a third type of person, one that analyses the pertinent information and translates it in the most appropriate way, and a willingness to have faith in that judgement and a willingness to take responsibility.

An example is Spock on Star-Trek; you would think his logic would make him a great leader, but there are a number of occasions where he was in charge of missions and got things wrong. He would choose the best probability rather than the most compassionate. You may decide to kill all the people in the forward compartments to save the ship, or you could take a big risk that could destroy the whole ship but if it works you will save everyone. A computer would just kill all the people in the forward compartments.

[Hidden]
load more