POLITICS - One of Many Sources of Waste of Time & Resources!

I just love that you are advocating for increased efficiency, yet you leave in the 'recreational drugs' and 'video games'.

I would assume that these are activites you partake in. If I choose to do neither, were would you allow me to reallocate that time?

And who spends 1 hour on a day on hygiene? 10 minute shower, 15 minutes to get completly ready for work. My fiance would add another 10 minutes for her hair/makeup.

You don't sound very efficient to me at all.

0 Replies

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe some of us are prettier than others? Or perhaps more shallow. Didn't think so.

You have my permission to relocate that saved time to any of the following...

Checking for mites

Hopscoth

(less than)3

P.S. Maporsche, regarding you and your loved one working together. When was the last time the two of you made a massive revolutionary positive impact on society? And if not, ask yourself why not. Could it be because you were too busy arguing and making love to be bothered to revolutinize the world? Hmm...

P.P.S. I still have 11 more minutes I can allocate to posting online for today.

JPB wrote:

Robots may be more efficient but they aren't very much fun.

Hey now, I'm a robot. And I happen to think I'm very fun.

Other notable robots that happen to be riots...

Al Gore (Did you catch him on 30 Rock this week?)

Stephen Colbert

Rudy Guliani (...9/11...9/11...9/11) - Okay, he's just scary.

My point is. Being a robot has absolutely no impact on either your "fun" or your "creativity." It takes extraordinary creativity to pull off what Rudy is doing. I mean seriously, how many ways can you rephrase a noun, a verb, and 9/11 before people start getting tired of (or terrified to) go to your speeches?

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Or perhaps more shallow.

Actually, that is exactly what I thought! Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Well, if that's your actual picture in your avator. Then I'm leaning towards the former. Razz

For godsake man, you look like a dog!

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Well, if that's your actual picture in your avator. Then I'm leaning towards the former.

For godsake man, you look like a dog!

I'm amazed at the shear amount of wasted time on this thread alone. How inefficient.

0 Replies

Well, the fact that this got moved to Philosophy must mean that unbenownst to me, there must be some serious philosophical debate in this threads underbelly.

Shall we start tackling at it.

I'll start.

Most people (adults everybit as much as kids, and especially present company included) are addicted to tv and the internet like flys to tube lighst and waste countless hours watching tv, surfing the web, and eating junk food. And we as a society would be better off restricting both to a certain number of hours per day.

Perhaps a programmable F-chip (with a different password for each individual) in all new tvs and modems that automatically shut themselves off in a couple of hours (at the end of the current program) for a day.

Microsoft thought the idea was good enough to implement into all their Xbox 360s.

Why not our society?

I came up with the name "F"-chip because that seems to be what people are most likely to shout when the chip kicks in, atleast until they eventually get accustomed to it.

Oh, and also something like Micheal Bloombergs citywide ban on all transfats and smoking.

Well, there goes my 15 minutes for today. Bye.

0 Replies

It seems I've convinced everyone here, atleast as far as not wasting time posting online (or atleast in this thread) is concerned!! Laughing

Seriously, I'm surprised that there isn't more disagreement.

0 Replies

Re: POLITICS - One of Many Sources of Waste of Time & Re

Centroles wrote:

The best way for a society to thrive and excel is to maximize the productivity of its individuals.

If I was to accept your basic premise I see no inherent rationale to limit it to the function of "productivity of its individuals".

I would argue that if your premise has viability a better function might be productivity per capita.

What's the difference you ask?

Because productivity per capita can be very high through robotics even if "productivity of its individuals" is not.

But most to the point you have neither qualified nor quantified "productivity", nor have you rationalized why the individual should be the most apropos benchmark. What if one was to measure productivity in terms of life-satisfaction?

0 Replies

Capitalism has for the large part taken care of the productivity per capita. There's little limitations to how cheaply we can mass produce products. Where we can use robots to do repetitive menial tasks, we do.

What I am proposing, to have a society where everything is done in moderation, I think pretty obviously does maximize life-satisfaction. I'm going based on my own experiences and what I've observed, but it's a lot more satisfying to spend an afternoon watching a little bit of tv, spending a little bit of time online etc than it is to spend the whole afternoon binge internet using/posting.

As I am typing this, CNN has a great special playing "America's Killer Diet"

I HIGHLY recommend watching it if you haven't. It explains so much of what this thread is about better than I could.

One of the arguments it makes is that we have very little free will. External factors such as advertisements and convenience play a much larger factor in what we do, than what we actually want or need.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Capitalism has for the large part taken care of the productivity per capita.

No I would argue it is not capitalism per se that is the decisive factor in your claim. It is advancing technologies under which a number of systems besides what some might call capitalism could well increase productivity per capita.

Centroles wrote:

There's little limitations to how cheaply we can mass produce products.

A claim without an in context inherent point that I can see, even if provable which you have not done.

Centroles wrote:

Where we can use robots to do repetitive menial tasks, we do.

Wholly false. It's clear your understanding of the present and future of robotics is very limited, in the context I gather you are referring it's hardly the be-all end-all of robotics.

Centroles wrote:

What I am proposing, to have a society where everything is done in moderation.

"Moderation" along with a number of your other terms of which you have yet to define as per my prior post.

Centroles wrote:

I think pretty obviously does maximize life-satisfaction.

If it is so obvious you should have no problems proving it but you have not done so.

Centroles wrote:

I'm going based on my own experiences

OK but I am not willing to accept that level of subjectiveness for the generalizations you claim.

Centroles wrote:

and what I've observed..

Qualify and quantify your observations in terms of empiricism and your claim will have substance.

Centroles wrote:

but it's a lot more satisfying to spend an afternoon watching a little bit of TV, spending a little bit of time online etc than it is to spend the whole afternoon binge internet using/posting.

As you please, but I see no relevance to your viewpoint in the context of our duologue.

Centroles wrote:

As I am typing this, CNN has a great special playing "America's Killer Diet"

I'm Canadian and thus do not fall pray (sic) to American foibles Smile

Centroles wrote:

I HIGHLY recommend watching it if you haven't. It explains so much of what this thread is about better than I could.

OK but you made the claims and it's on that basis I respond, not on your views that CNN makes better arguments.

Centroles wrote:

One of the arguments it makes is that we have very little free will.

Lots of views on free will on A2K, my view is that the arguments about free will are absurd, at least in a religious context if not also in a pragmatic context.

Centroles wrote:

External factors such as advertisements and convenience play a much larger factor in what we do, than what we actually want or need.

I would agree that external influences play a large part in our actions, but what's your point in context?

Welcome to A2K have fun, lots of very sharp people to amuse and maybe even enlighten.

If I may make a suggestion; research your topic more thoroughly, limit its scope more dramatically, stay on topic, keep an open mind and use spell-check religiously.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I'm Canadian...

Well there's the problem right there. You live in Canada, America's coddled little gay sister. You already live in a nanny state!

Of course you don't understand what I'm talking about. You guys don't have to put up with nearly as much crap in terms of tv channels, political leeches (republicans), advertisements, multiple 24 hour news channels that devote 20 of those 24 hours to anna nicole smith, britney spears and other idiotic irrelevent court cases, and other utter nonsense as we do.

And yes, I have spent time in Canada, and I can vouch for the fact that your nanny state is a more satisfying place to live in than our free for all guerrilla death match state.

And second of all, how exactly am I supposed to scientifically prove that lots of fun things in moderation is more satisfying than binging on one thing only.

How exactly does any one go about conducting a double blind experiment to prove that. Show me such an experiment and I will show you the scientific proof that you seek.

Till then, go back to getting high on a zambonie you french speaking queen worshipping mounty.

0 Replies

The wet coast does not do French.

BC pot is the best. Pot is decriminalized in Canada, unlike the self-mutilating self-destructive war on drugs promoted in the US.

Same sex marriages are legal in Canada unlike the self-destructive right wing religious Christian whack-job views as promoted in the US.

It can be argued that Canada has more freedoms than the US due to the softer approach to drugs, the legalization of same sex marriages and the lesser degree of political polarization because there is more than a myopic two party system.

You are very out-of-date in your views as to the real position of royalty in Canada due to the new-ish Constitution.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy and our head of state is Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. But the Canadian Constitution limits her powers in government and the Queen is generally considered a figurehead leader only.

Canada isn't unique in its system of government. Dozens of constitutional monarchies exist around the world. Most of them have their roots in England and are members of the Commonwealth.

As to the reasonable levels of empiricism in the context given, look to statistical studies, yes they exist and yes I would argue there is a basis for empiricism to be found in them.

However you made the claims, thus the obligations are for you to back them up, not for me to substantiate why they can or cannot be backed up.

You need to look into the fundamentals of augmentation.

As to my views of the US versus Canada and nanny state arguments, let's just say that Zamboni technology is second to none. However I am not a fan of socialized corporations for the sake of idealizations alone, because I believe in the concept of a level playing field and the right to compete.

History and other countries tend to support the belief that an economy does best when two things are in place:

1) Strong Antitrust
2) Fair and level playing field so all can compete

However the "miracle" of post-war Japan would argue against my claim to some degree.

0 Replies

I'm all for pot. My fifth post in this thread...

Centroles wrote:

So I take that the two of us are in total agreement.

We as a society need to...

Supplant Democracy with Technocracy,

Restrict Television to an hour a day per household member,

Restrict The Internet to an hour a day (except email, wikipedia, google maps and other informative sites like Able2know),

Legalize relatively benign recreational drugs (marijuana, alcohol, nicotine possibly ecstacy) in small occasional doses but limit them to 81 mg a day as we do with tylenol,

Get rid of all borders and disband both the pentagon and the military,

Ban Organized Religion,

Limit time spend with loved ones to no more than two hours a day and limit arguments to no more than 15 minutes a day,

Ban all professional sports

Premptively imprison all celebrities before they go out and do something stupid that dominates the newscycle for the next 72 hours and wastes everybodies time (I'm looking at you Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears).

The main problem that remains now is how to go about imposing these restrictions.

I was thinking some grand computer and security camera based orwellian type society could work, unless you can come up with a better idea?

Edit: Oops, almost forgot about videogames. They're limited to 30 minutes a day, unless you're talking about Civilization. And diet is limited to contain 20 grams of fat per day.

Anything else I forgot? The main point of this post was to make absolutely certain that nothing was forgotten before I write a letter to George Bush with a list of great policies to push through his last year in office.

Please post if there's anything else I forgot.

0 Replies

- Politics wastes time - this thread is political, and is therefore wasting time you could spend being productive, so you should never have written this post

- talking about wasting time : reading these forums stops people from being productive, therefore no-one should be reading your post, which would make your post ineffectual, even if your philosophy allowed you to post it...

-and if your reforms were to implemented, it would inevitably cause a war, and seeing as wars are counterproductive, you would have to follow your own philosophy and not implement your reforms.

0 Replies

Nowadays, what doesn't cause a war?

It will end the war on drugs, and eventually the war on poverty. I think ending two wars for the price of war is a good tradeoff.

And I'm in total agreement, this thread is a waste of time. Once I rule the universe, such threads will be banned.

But until such time, these threads are essential to recruiting an army to do my bidding.

0 Replies

Ahh, now I understand - Wasting time to save time Shocked

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

It will end the war on drugs, and eventually the war on poverty. I think ending two wars for the price of war is a good tradeoff.

You're not talking about ending the war on drugs, you're talking about ending the war on pot and ecstasy (presumably your two favorites), and then you mentioned alcohol and nicotine which are already legal.

What about the other multitude of drugs that you haven't proposed legalizing?

0 Replies

If everybody can buy mj for a few pennies an ounce, who's going to have the energy to make crack, or sell it, or buy it?

Or for that matter, who's going to have the energy to go to war?

So I stand corrected, what I'm proposing will indeed end all war.

My argument eats itself, there I said it.

Seriously though, the crux of the war of drugs IS on pot. It's the cause of the most fines, imprisonments and such by far.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

If everybody can buy mj for a few pennies an ounce, who's going to have the energy to make crack, or sell it, or buy it?

Or for that matter, who's going to have the energy to go to war?

So I stand corrected, what I'm proposing will indeed end all war.

My argument eats itself, there I said it.

Seriously though, the crux of the war of drugs IS on pot. It's the cause of the most fines, imprisonments and such by far.

What makes you think that if pot were legal it'd only be a few pennies an ounce. IF the government were ever to legalize pot, they'd tax the hell out of it (I'm sure much worse than cigarettes).

And you're nieve to think that other drugs would suddenly lose their market. Pot is already much cheaper than most all other drugs, yet we still have these other drugs.

You'd have to legalize everything to have any impact against the war on drugs. But at least if you legalized pot and taxed it you'd have financing to fight the other drugs.

0 Replies

Part of what makes marijauna so impossible to regulate is that anyone could grow it out of their own closet.

The same can't be said of cocaine and most other drugs. I also think that if mj was a legal substance, it wouldn't have young people questioning if indeed all the illegal substances were in fact so benign and would greatly minimize any gateway effect pot has "if this illegal substance that everyone and the government tells me I should never use is so benign, maybe the others are as well"

So yes I do think the drug war could be far more effectively conducted if pot were no longer a banned substance.

But honestly, I have no desire to talk about this here as it neither interests me nor do I believe it will ever happen. Pot may someday become legal, but cocaine never will (nor do I believe that it should).

Lets get back to topic.

THE STATE LOTTERY IS A LEECH ON THE POOREST OF INDIVIDUALS

I honestly think that idea of the state lottery is abhored. People whose lives are going okay have little desire in the lottery.

It is the poor people, barely making ends meet, clinging to god to subcumb their despire, that convince themselves that they might and could well win the lottery. The spend countless hours each week dreaming about how wonderful their lives would be if they win and praying to god that they win this week. And worse of all, they use a big chunk of what little money they have to buy lottery tickets.

In many ways, the lottery is a tax on the very poorest of individuals, and a way that turns them into addicts.

The high of picking up and scratching that ticket, all while daydreaming of how much better their lives would be if they win, followed by the disappointment of seeing that they hadn't. That one moment of respid where they are day dreaming about winning before each ticket is enough to make them want more and more tickets, again and again. That's classic addiction conditioning.

I just abhore the whole concept.

What about you?

P.S. I should have titled this topic..... IN defense of a nanny state.

0 Replies

POLITICS - One of Many Sources of Waste of Time & Resources!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know