@freemo can we get everybody in qoto together to build a country with rationalism, logic, freedom and stem as a foundation?
I came across a Nigerian dude a while back complaining about his government and talking about a possible way to create a new country with a government system from scratch. His idea was to start as an online movement which would attract people of similar values and ideas about how to make governing structures. Then, you put them in a truly anonymous block chain where they can have a "passport" from this digital country and a platform where ideas and plans are made from ground up (using something like ADA/cardano or ICP/dfinity). For example, people can work on the legal infrastructure and other aspects of the country where everybody gets to vote and decisions are settled with smart contracts. All out in the open. Eventually, when sufficient people have joined the system, make a colony in a suitable piece of land (or multiple even in different geographical locations), either on earth or else where. So, you'd build all the values and digital infrastructure first and the actual physical system last.
What do you say?
@zpartacoos @freemo I think a key issue with respect to countries, or collectives of any sort, is the idea of shared values and incentives: from my perspective, a large reason for the seemingly tenuous nature of western countries at the moment is due to the lack of shared beliefs/a value structure for people to align themselves toward.
While you wish to build a country or community on the idea of rationalism and logic, fundamentally there are going to be some values we must accept (and agree on) that may or may not have a provable foundation in a strictly logical sense; thus, they may contradict other rational beliefs (see Godel's incompleteness theorem and its implications). E.g. the current debate over pronouns and the idea of the gender spectrum vs the gender binary. Some would say the spectrum is the only answer and those who disagree are unwelcome in their social circles, and vice-versa. These are both values that can be supported rationally and with sound logic, and either view is ultimately reasonable depending on the axioms you use to justify your position. (Whether or not the axioms are reasonable is a different question, but assuming they are the point as it is stands.) So how would we handle this politically charged, philosophical schism?
I would argue the strict, explicit definition of these values and axioms would be step 1, so individuals could reasonably evaluate if they want to take part in such a system. If this is going to be done democratically, it further stands to reason that people cannot (and should not) be held to standards of offense either at all, or until the standards are finalized. Perhaps an anonymous discussion is in order up front. This allows potential members to hash out difficult topics without fear of retribution for their input, which is critically important for good ideas to gestate.
After this initial process is ironed out (and maybe repeated in the future as things change), I would argue the rest is easy, at least philosophically, though probably not so much in the implementation.
If you don't mind @zpartacoos, I would enjoy helping you put "pen-to-paper" and formalizing some of these ideas. I think this would be at the very least, a fun exercise, regardless of whether or not it bears fruit eventually :)
@freemo @zpartacoos I'd contend it depends on the values. (I agree with your point on mob size though).
If the values are "we respect each individuals right to do what they want with themselves, and whoever they interact with consensually". That is a value that is hard to abuse.
However, there are values which can be abused, and there are behaviors that we may not want happening that fall into that previously mentioned value. Thus the need for debate and determination of what values are reasonable, and which contradictory values need to be in place as exceptions to the general rule.
Example: "don't kill people":
Exception: "unless in self-defense"
And so forth.
Ultimately it may even be a difference between whether the values are affirmative or prohibitory:
"We affirm your right to x,y,z, and anything outside that will be handled on a case-by-case basis."
Or
"Here's what's prohibited, the rest is allowed on a case-by-case basis."
Or some combination thereof.
So ultimately I think it depends on how it's implemented as to whether or not it is easier or harder to abuse, but ultimately any system of authority can be abused. So we either reduce the scope of the authority so the abuse is less damaging, or we hang the abusers without fixing anything like the French lmao.
🇳🇱
Yes but those values are generally relative tot he uniformity of the group.
Groups that are highly uniform all sharing the same culture and values tend towards greater xenophobia due to lack of exposure to other cultures. So by their very nature their values will tend more towards xenophobia than mixed groups.
Maybe if you go back to times before society sure... not so much in the modern era.
doing what already works will continue to work until overpopulation occurs. doing anything else is spooky.
reasonable... like I said pre-civilization (which is what your civilization represented) it is a good trait for survival. Post civilization not so much but tends to stick around from our pre-civilization days.
@icedquinn @freemo @zpartacoos I will concede the fact that communities tend to crop up in large scale networks due to the efficiency of scale-free behavior; however, rationalizing your position based on the simplified objective function of bugs in a toy simulation, and the term "spooky" isn't sufficient.
I work on simulating these sorts of networks and there's a lot of literature you may want to look into before making snap judgements like that.
@icedquinn @freemo @zpartacoos That's a few words for "I didn't understand your argument so I'm going to assume I won" lmao
Your conclusion, if I must spell it out for you, is nonsense. You're making generalizations about human beings based on a rudimentary simulation that considers nothing about how people actually behave, how the world is, and more. So don't erroneously extrapolate between your stupid little bugs, and people, without sufficient evidence.
The shade in this thread (both directions) is absolutely glorious... please continue.
@freemo @icedquinn @zpartacoos I will if necessary: [relevant XKCD](https://xkcd.com/386/).
@freemo @icedquinn @zpartacoos Just got sub-tooted on his main page lmao
@freemo @icedquinn @zpartacoos
Here's a link. Main page as in profile, or a toot not in this thread:
https://blob.cat/objects/ca19e9dd-6ff2-4eb2-9291-114482cd1702
@freemo @zpartacoos Well yes, but we have a few advantages over how groups formed in the past. We aren't physically, intellectually, or even culturally insulated, and we are in the position here to "grow our own foundation" from the foundations of everyone who brings something a little different to the table.
Since we're on the internet, I bet we have a nice heterogeneity of culture. Thus, we can extract the commonalities among them, choose the best between them, and see what comes out the other side. This does not logically necessitate xenophobia or discrimination. It simply provides a guiding ethos, and a set of criteria people can evaluate to determine whether or not they want to participate.
You are right we arent insulated... thats the whole point. The less insulated you are from other cultures the less xenophobic you will be. So you are generally saying "the less xenophobic we are (the less insulation) the less xenophobic we will be".. it becomes circular at that point.
@freemo @zpartacoos No, my point was it's possible to construct a strong, shared ethos that is independent of group uniformity by actively choosing to include other groups and selecting the crème de la crème of their ideas as a basis set.
Thus, you can have a strong ethos that doesn't include discrimination, precisely due to the lack of insulation which is now available.
@johnabs
I would disagree. Shared values and cultures tend to lead to fewer people being abused, but those people are abused to a much greater extent. The larger the mob the more violent they tend to get. Lots of little mobs may result in more turmoil as they all come up against each other but having smaller numbers means the damage is much less for any one incident.
@zpartacoos