Imagine a world where people...-from Serious Discussions

[MatthewV]

Where grew up on the internet. Look at all the garbage it is being filled with. How can we clean it up so that we can pass on something better?
_________________
He tried to understand a phenomenon by describing and depicting it in utmost detail and did not emphasize experiments or theoretical explanation.

[LordKinbote]

[Chaz]

It's a very interesting question (and concept). I spent an unbelievable amount of time (in varying states of consciousness) trying to answer this question.

The question that you're not asking (or, rather, not considering) is what makes something "better" (or worse, or, for that matter, different)?

Most of my journey to becoming an Anarchist was centered around these thoughts (what is "the best" thing?)

I won't bore you with the details of my journey; however, I finally concluded that "best" is defined after the fact. More importantly, "best" can't be defined before the end (nor can better.) To use hyperbole, take the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_chip example. If we assume that the Saratoga Springs account is accurate (and I think it's fair to say that the story is at least plausible), then the Potato Chip we know and love would never have come into existence (assuming the Chef decided that the "best" potatoes were not so thin and crisp and over salted.) I, personally, think that the "best" way to enjoy a potato is via the potato chip (and I could probably rally some pretty strong backing to support this claim); however, had censorship crushed the chip, my definition of "best way to enjoy a potato" would be different (and, by extension, not necessarily as correct as it is now.)

This is the problem I have with trying to define the "best" (or, to stay on topic, "better.") What makes something better? Who gets to decide why it is or is not better?

When we speak of things like The Internet, we're speaking of ideas being shared. I think we can agree that ideas which inspire people to be better people are the ideas that we would want promoted on the better Internet (or, at the very least, I'm going to continue my argument from that perspective.) However, now we're back at defining "better".

What makes a person a "better" person? Again, who gets to decide this?

This line of reasoning quickly degraded (for me) into impossible philosophical paradoxes.
If a man saves the lives of 50 people, is he better than a man who only saves the lives of 49 people? What if ManB saved the lives of 1 person on 49 occasions, but ManA saved 50 people all at once? What if one of the men saved by ManA ends up killing 30 people? Or saving thousands of people? What if ManA had to kill a man to save those 50? Does Joe Chill get credit for creating Batman, and, if he does, does that mean he's responsible for the good that Batman does? And on, and on, and on it went (to ridiculous levels that make the Batman question look serious.)

The problem is that we don't know what will happen in the future. We can't know what will be "better" until the end of time (and, even if we could know what would happen, the butterfly effect could change things drastically.)

The current "garbage" on the Internet has inspired you to dream up a better Internet. If the garbage hadn't existed, would you have ascribed to betterness? Would it matter?

-----------------------------------

At the end of the day, I've come to two pretty hard/fast conclusions.

The first is that people need to decide things for themselves.
People need to make choices. These choices need to have positive and negative consequences. When they make a "good" choice, they need to be rewarded, and when they make a bad choice, they need to suffer. The best choice will be the one with the highest reward, and the worst choice will be the one with the most terrible punishment.

The second is that we should encourage others to make good choices, but only force their choices under dire circumstances.
Influence should be applied liberally to anyone making choices (almost always give advice out.) Intervention, however, should be used only when life or limb is at stake (of any person, in importance of self, others, then chooser.) In other words, we should always intervene (force a choice) when someone's choice is going to cause our self to die. If others will die because of a choice, we should usually intervene. If the choice is going to kill the person making the choice, we should probably intervene and stop them.

-----------------------------------

When you suggest that we clean up The Internet and leave the best possible place for future generations, I think everyone agrees that this is a great idea. We all want to leave the best possible everything for future generations. Where you'll find disagreement will be in what that entails. If you're suggesting that we censor the Internet, you'll meet some very serious (and long standing) opposition. Censoring of others (in my experience) has never lead to a "better" anything. It might lead to a better Internet experience for you (or me, or even most), but that's not, necessarily, a better Internet (since we won't know which Internet would have been "better" until the end of The Internet.

-----------------------------------

In other threads, I've heard you mentioning censoring GL posts. The GL does not need censorship (in any form, ever, with the possible exception of SPAM, but even some SPAM posts have elicited interesting topics.) The "best" threads are the ones in which people participate, and the "worst" threads die quickly. Message boards have an inherent filter to weed out the lessor threads; if people aren't inspired (and thus interested) in the thread, then it drops off into the void. If they are inspired, their inspiration will be contagious, and others will benefit from it. This realistic view on the dynamic of the GL is what drew its members here (and probably what drew you here.) To change that would break the GL, and the GL will not allow its self to be killed. =P
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[extropalopakettle]

oh no - it's contagious

[extropalopakettle]

oops - my mistake - it's just Chaz

[MatthewV]

mmm


...


ily



_________________
He tried to understand a phenomenon by describing and depicting it in utmost detail and did not emphasize experiments or theoretical explanation.