Aspies For Freedom

With current generation human beings any kind of communism is impossible, even with Aspies they are too genetically inferior.  

I've met a lot of aspies I don't like and who are aren't intelligent enough to handle a communist / socialist society, they lack the control over their base instincts needed for such a system.  They indentify / worship the messages sent along their Central nervous system and are mentally unsophisticated, so as not to doubt their own agitation.  It works on the same principle as morality, most people's morals are knee jerk inner feelings, not some well thought out and rationally justified point of view from years of study and introspection and self mastery.

Eugenics will take over at some point or we will be replaced by machines or biogenetic hybrids.   People today are little more then barbarians for the most part thats why communism can't work, most likely new social structure which will be hard to predict will emerge from china and india because they are going through the growing pains of capitalism at some point there will be a critical mass of misery and because of telecommunications technology they will have capable tools for organizing themselves.

The fact is to become a spacefaring race we will have to radically alter our biology/existence at some point to survive.

I count myself among the barbarians, what I wrote came from years of difficulty with AS, my own axieties, etc, periods of strong just needing to be away from other people.  It's a view I've acquired from 10 years of intense study and not having to work and observing politics and the world around me.

Robots won't "Take over" (as in war) in my opinion, the cause of war and strife is roughly threefold fold:  Inner animal prejudices, conflict of choice and conflict over resources.

Almost all stupid *** is caused by human beings, if anything, if robots ever want to kill us and take us out it's because we've designed them badly.  Or some crackpot who is a genius programmer will reprogram them to be more like humans and calculate the value of others lives compared to their use/survival value on its own.  But I really dont see robots being these immortal overlords they still have to exist under the same laws of physics, so its most likely we will INVENT our progenitors / grandchildren.

I see us  becoming:

1) Genetically engineered for quality traits (ability, looks, morality, etc)
2) Having enhanced technology to make people more compassionate, and rational (total elimination of backward religious beliefs, etc)
3) A merging of nanotechnological machines and biology, we will learn to control and re-engineer biological systems so they no longer malfunction as they do in humans, or "malfunction" by carrying out out-dated genetic programs, much of peoples behaviour evolutionary programmed biological responses.

Think about why it is movies are so successful in engaging peoples emotions, etc, its because they are taking advantage of how people predictably respond to something.

3) If a critical mass in space travel occurs, different factions of humanity will either unify (hive-mind) or split off to go colonize other planets.
Almost all choices come down to conflict over a resource (i.e. competing / discriminating for mates, products, ideas, etc).

Peoples differences aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves if they each had their own universe/planet unto themselves, but in a universe where we depend on one another for surivival, one persons vision for the world comes into conflict with anothers since they are competing over implementing that vision in the same space.

Unfortunately "Freedom" as a concept in most peoples minds is ill defined,  whenever someone says they "love freedom" or says the word it always usually shuts down thought about critical analyses of of the term "freedom", and what is meant by it.  All too often we are mired in overly simplistic views of the term.   If I'm a disabled person in market society which heavily discriminates against such, I may be technically "Free" in mindshare/mindspace of others, but the reality is I'm a slave because of status and cultural discrimination.  Technically anyone who doesn't control their own food/energy resources is not in the real sense of the word "free", since if one is unable to work or can be manipulated financially, then one necessarily is dependent on someone else directly or indirectly in order to live or for their livelihood, status, happyness, or wellbeing.

In the real world there are always limitations on freedom.  For instance, poor people in say china who can't afford a car are 'geographically less free' then someone who does own one and can afford to operate one.

At some point in a system where resources/high income jobs are limited and/or their is mass inequality or some other natural factor (geography, small population, etc), you will always find limits on freedom (generally speaking), irregardless.

Free countries that have freedom of speech don't necessarily have freedom.  You could argue the poor in market societies have no freedom due to structural limitations of markets and human greed, you will always have the have nots.

I think we have a cult of freedom here in america because millions of people really know they are trapped inside the market, so they religiously believe they are free.   When economic doors of opportunity are closed the world does not feel very "Free" to that person, nor  does that person feel that they have freedom (a safe degree power over what occurs in the future).

Economic freedom is the source of personal freedom, its hard to be free if you're starving. But, economic freedom has a problem with wealth concentration or "the centralization of wealth".  Wealth always tends to centralize over time, which shows markets are inadequate by themselves.  There never has been a "Free market", if you look at all the asymetries of information, decision making is very constrained  is not rational because of market distorting effects by the actors or other things.

It was 1994 and I was reading John Gurley's assessments of communism and capitalism

1.  Stalin had a problem around 1941, survival or socialist equality?  He chose survival, put resources into zillions of T-34 tanks and stuff.

2.  President Reagan planned to take down Soviet communism by challenging it to an arms race.  Uncle Sam won the race, but poor Ivan got a heart attack trying to match our defense spending with its weaker economy.  I'd say Uncle Sam better check for heart disease and plaque in the arteries: we wracked up quite a debt to beat Ivan.

The beauty is that Reagan did it without a shooting war.  Almost no bloodshed, at least directly: I mean, militaries have accidents, and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, but that was their fight and not ours.

Gurley also reported that at the time of the Kitchen Debate (Khrushchev and Nixon, 1958 or 1959), the Soviets did have some impressive centrally-directed economic growth.   "We will bury you" could have meant economically, Nikita also said, "...bye bye" about economic growth.  But it wasn't there when Reagan jacked up defense spending, and that buried Ivan.

Well......  I was taking Sociological Theory I and II graduate school classes from a professor who was teaching Marx as a sociologist (he was).  I said out loud in the II class, those College Republicans are going to think we're Communists.

Someone told me on the down low that two students were Communists.

Yes, Wilky, I recall that the Soviets were less combat effective than Americans or British, who were more parallel with the Germans.  So many of them died to keep Hitler busy and it was they who took Berlin, 100,000 dead in that alone.  The Germans could have taken Britain instead.  We should be so lucky and a little grateful.  I agree.

well i think the communism is an utopic idea, maybe the most utopic of everyone, it needs every people be honest.

by the other side i think if everyone have the same stuffs or position from birth, no one, or at least few people will have a superation desire (just look paris hilton) , maybe we need capitalism, but the big problem is that many people does'nt have even the opportunity of success, thats on of the biggest and more urgent problems the Humannity need resolve

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
-- Winston Churchill

What would a market researcher discover about North Korea?
Hmmmm maybe that the adults are so malnourished that feminine hygiene is not much of a concern?

The one and only way, indeed, except that the Cubans have done an awful lot to make the most of a post-petroleum world and our American leaders should take a closer look at Cuba rather than treating it jealously like some ex girlfriend.  Come on, its been almost fifty years!

America has been blockading and isolating Cuba for nearly 50 years now.

Kind of makes every guy that can't get over a girl seem tiny by comparison.

Don't forget America tried invading Cuba with the Bay of Pigs.  That's descibing domestic violence right there.

My Latin teacher told us don't worry so much about the Soviets invading America (there was an ABC miniseries Amerika about the same in 1987 when I was a HS junior).  He said America was too big to occupy by even 300 million Soviets. Inevitably American life would go on.  

I also remember on the old Bulletin Board Systems (dial up, type in a msg, hang up, and someone else does the same after you) someone said an average Soviet told him as he visited "we want peace too".  

Ideology is less universal than the desire to live in peace.

In retrospect I'm glad Reagan managed to shrink the Russian threat down to size, and by doing so bring self determination to Eastern Europe, but we were damned lucky we didn't accidentally destroy civilization in the process.  We could have accidentally triggered nuclear Armageddon.  We came close several times and Reagan used the Soviet fear as an impetus to make the USSR spend money it didn't have to match our spending for weapons with money we didn't have either.  Ronnie Raygun gave Ivan a heart attack in the arms race.  Now we should think about bypass surgery for America.

We should be glad the Soviets were relatively sane, I mean, valued life more or less as much as we do.  Some of the Afghanis we supported to fight the Soviets (oh, wasn't Rambo III such a feel good movie?  Until you remember that some of them joined Al Qaeda later) now seek our destruction via Al Qaeda.  Read Weapons of Choice by John Birmingham (Axis of Time alternate history trilogy): Al Qaeda and the Japanese kamikazes have much in common, especially the willingness to die to inflict defeat on an enemy.