Geniocracy

OK everyone. I want you all to rent and watch the films, Gattica and Blade Runner. Watch both films five times in alternating succession. Then let's all reconvene the discussion.

flow....:cool:
 
flowperson said:
OK everyone. I want you all to rent and watch the films, Gattica and Blade Runner. Watch both films five times in alternating succession. Then let's all reconvene the discussion.

flow....:cool:
Click to expand...

The movie Being John Malkovich is recommended.:D

Gattica . . . I couldn't find that on Wikipedia. What is it?
 
It's a ten year old or so movie about a possible future where genetically engineered humans are nurtured for success, and those who aren't as favored try anything to break the "genetic ceiling".

Gore Vidal brilliantly plays the head of a research organization. Jude Law's in it. Even gene cops play a role. Chillingly realistic, but it's really , like genocracy, just another version of misdirected eugenics. The problem is that these days the technology is so available and affordable for some that some of this is probably going on already, IMO.

I'm pretty sure I've run up against this several times. As we move on in time, human genotype and phenotype differences are probably going to mean a lot more to more people for lots of reasons; and we, as a society, are simply not at all prepared for these sorts of ethical quagmires, as exemplified by the hassles going on over stem cell research.

flow....:cool:
 
Indeed, Eugenic superiorty is what is actually being discussed here. But as in Gattica, there is nothing more superior than the will to succeed. Even the all star paraplegic recognized that.
 
Quahom1 said:
Indeed, Eugenic superiorty is what is actually being discussed here. But as in Gattica, there is nothing more superior than the will to succeed. Even the all star paraplegic recognized that.
Click to expand...

I do not see how we are discussing 'eugenic superiority', perhaps you may like to expand that statement for me..?

Thanks


Steve
 
enlightenment said:
I do not see how we are discussing 'eugenic superiority', perhaps you may like to expand that statement for me..?

Thanks


Steve
Click to expand...
Sure. To design and develope a super human race both mentally, spiritually and physically to guide and lead the rest of society. Ideally this would be a beneficient and benevolant group of demigods who's whole purpose would be to look out for and map out a near perfect future for mankind. In reality however we have found that with super men in the past also came super flaws in their character.

I'm not talking about mad men either. Historically I can think of quite a few "heroes" who helped mankind out, but had their direct influence continued, could have just as easily hindered mankind, or worse. (Samson, Srqt, Spartacus, Muhammad, Tsun Zou, King Richard the Lionhearted, Jefferson, Patton, MacArthur, Montgomery, Doolittle, Rommel...). Because they were alone and commanded loyalty by the common human being, they lead men to great achievements. But suppose they were all together at the same time, trying to lead the rest of mankind, and what if there were thousands more just like them all wanting to rule man for man's sake...

There has to be balance in life. It is seen in the school yards, in governemts, in social conclaves and on the battle field.

v/r

Joshua
 
Sorry, I still don't exactly see were you are going with this one, to be honest.

Apologies again.


:(
 
enlightenment said:
Sorry, I still don't exactly see were you are going with this one, to be honest.

Apologies again.


:(
Click to expand...
There can never be a superior man, in a world of men...only mediocre men who rise to the occasion of superiority for a moment. Can not serve two masters. Hence God is superior, or man is...

That is the bottom line. And the day that man thinks he is superior to God, is the day of reckoning...

v/r

Joshua
 
Quahom1 said:
There can never be a superior man, in a world of men...only mediocre men who rise to the occasion of superiority for a moment. Can not serve two masters. Hence God is superior, or man is...

That is the bottom line. And the day that man thinks he is superior to God, is the day of reckoning...

v/r

Joshua
Click to expand...

Ah.

I see.

You are a theist.

End of this particular coverstion then, no offence.
 
enlightenment said:
Ah.

I see.

You are a theist.

End of this particular coverstion then, no offence.
Click to expand...

I think the point was that individualism, collectivism, and individualistic and collectivistic agendas all have their strong and weak points.

If society is over-individualistic, it encourages a self-absorbed, self-indulgent, narcissistic attitude. Everybody has to get and have their way. There is no concern for the other person or what happens to everyone else -- what they're thinking and feeling. An over-individualistic attitude is apathetic to the point that you only care about yourself.

If society is over-collectivistic, people lose their identity. When utilitarianism comes into the picture, it gets even more impersonal. Whatever system runs your life or controls society doesn't care who you are as a person or what you've been through. People don't really matter, except for the achievement of the goal that the collectivistic system pursues. You are all instruments of a machine. The gears and shafts that keep it going. There are rules. If you don't conform or follow the rules, you are a heretic, traitor, infidel, rebel or outcast. The utopian ideals have been undermined and compromised. You have shattered the crystal of perfection and corrupted it. You are no longer part of The Collective.

Of course, you can be "collectivistic" about being individualistic, but that isn't really collectivism.

What can I say? There must be a balance between individualism and collectivism.

Ok, so what about a Collective that leads individuals?

The only problem I have with that is that "The Collective" that leads individuals not part of the Collective is itself composed of individuals. The people who are part of this Collective will have authority stamped into their identity. Are they special because everybody calls them special or because they really are special? The point here is not that one individual should not have authority or be more special than another, but that there shouldn't need to be a "special entity" for recognising one's "special identity" if one is intrinsically and inherently special.

People will either notice your special qualities, or they may not. If they do, they should respect and appreciate you for who you are as a person, what you live for, work for, have worked for, and died and bled for. If they don't see this in you, then let it be. Nobody is so important that when their special identity is not recognised they should lash out and or fly into a pompous and snobbish outburst.

Why not just share the world, your life's journey and your life experiences with everyone else? In that sense you are special in the sense of being unique. You have authority and insight into your own uniqueness. You are an expert on you. You are enlightened about you and are qualified to talk about you. As long as you remember that your unique identity is really a part of the collective identity of the human race, all could be well. If you want to give advice to others, it's only from what you've learnt and experienced in life.

If we all shared, the world might well be closer to the ideals even if it isn't apparent. Yet, the ideals would be achieved because sharing would become part of the instrinsic identity of the collective of all human beings, just as your personality forms the instrinsic identity of you as a person.

No need for banners and slogans. We just need to be ourselves. Be real people.

We don't even have to argue about it or promote the idea. We all know it was always what we were supposed to do. We all understand what needs to be done. It's all down-to-earth and simple. Just share. So the idea is for us to just do it. No special advertisements.

It's a nameless agenda because it's an agenda that doesn't need a name. Nobody can brag or boast about it. It's a part of us all.
 
Saltmeister said:
The only problem I have with that is that "The Collective" that leads individuals not part of the Collective is itself composed of individuals. The people who are part of this Collective will have authority stamped into their identity. Are they special because everybody calls them special or because they really are special? The point here is not that one individual should not have authority or be more special than another, but that there shouldn't need to be a "special entity" for recognising one's "special identity" if one is intrinsically and inherently special.

It is not about elistism based on imherited wealth, status, or influence, but one based only on placing the most intelligent creatives in charge, instead of pesudo religous freaks that we see in the US or Iran. Time after time, democracy has brought only war and poverty. It has a poor record, and were that not so, then of course, there would be no need to seek anything else.

People will either notice your special qualities, or they may not. If they do, they should respect and appreciate you for who you are as a person, what you live for, work for, have worked for, and died and bled for. If they don't see this in you, then let it be. Nobody is so important that when their special identity is not recognised they should lash out and or fly into a pompous and snobbish outburst.

Again, it has nothing to do with snobbery, that is what we have now, with monarhcies, for example!

Part of the testing would in theory compose of measuring their altusitic intent, as that is a form of intelligence.

And this would be factored in.

Why not just share the world, your life's journey and your life experiences with everyone else? In that sense you are special in the sense of being unique. You have authority and insight into your own uniqueness. You are an expert on you. You are enlightened about you and are qualified to talk about you. As long as you remember that your unique identity is really a part of the collective identity of the human race, all could be well. If you want to give advice to others, it's only from what you've learnt and experienced in life.

As applies to all, I guess. Yet many worthy things have been achieved bt this method, have they not..?

If we all shared, the world might well be closer to the ideals even if it isn't apparent. Yet, the ideals would be achieved because sharing would become part of the instrinsic identity of the collective of all human beings, just as your personality forms the instrinsic identity of you as a person.

Would not disagreee with any of that, altjough you would need a system to make it happen...?

No need for banners and slogans. We just need to be ourselves. Be real people.

Totally agree

We don't even have to argue about it or promote the idea. We all know it was always what we were supposed to do. We all understand what needs to be done. It's all down-to-earth and simple. Just share. So the idea is for us to just do it. No special advertisements.

Indeed.

It's a nameless agenda because it's an agenda that doesn't need a name. Nobody can brag or boast about it. It's a part of us all.
Click to expand...

Okay, and good post.
 
enlightenment said:
It is not about elistism based on imherited wealth, status, or influence, but one based only on placing the most intelligent creatives in charge, instead of pesudo religous freaks that we see in the US or Iran. Time after time, democracy has brought only war and poverty. It has a poor record, and were that not so, then of course, there would be no need to seek anything else.

Part of the testing would in theory compose of measuring their altusitic intent, as that is a form of intelligence.
Click to expand...

But . . . I was wondering. Does history not have an example of something like this that failed?

Take, for example, the Confucian civil service examination system in Imperial China. You had to study Confucius' philosophies to get into government, to be a teacher or community leader. Trouble was, there were plenty of people trying to enter the civil service for personal gain. The ranks of government and community leaders were often plagued with corruption. They were appointed to lead, serve and protect the people but often ended up doing otherwise.

I had an idea for a "professional democracy" once. Instead of businessmen, lawyers, accountants and journalists running the government, it would also include scientists, engineers and mathematicians. The ordinary person wouldn't be able to get into government. You needed to be a professional -- a scientist, mathematician, engineer, accountant, etc.

I didn't like the fact that elections are driven by charisma, popular views and character attacks. Also, why is it the person we elect and not the policy? Why have political parties? Why don't we just go up to the government to make petitions as in the Ancient Roman Repulic?

Top officials in government were to be magistrates with judicial power, scientists, mathematicians and engineers who could predict the future, accountants to manage the books and watch the cashflow . . .

Not businessmen, capitalists and journalists out to grab money and votes . . . The phoniness and pomp. Ewwww, yuk. How distasteful. Disgusting.

Government was not to be driven by mediocrity.

enlightenment said:
If we all shared, the world might well be closer to the ideals even if it isn't apparent. Yet, the ideals would be achieved because sharing would become part of the instrinsic identity of the collective of all human beings, just as your personality forms the instrinsic identity of you as a person.

Would not disagreee with any of that, altjough you would need a system to make it happen...?
Click to expand...

It would be a bit unnatural if that happened. The idea is to have no system. People just do it naturally like a flower that opens up in spring-time.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top