What does your ideal government look like?

Kannon wrote:

I agree completely with Phoenix Rev, with one small exception. I like the idea of getting a permanent moon base in place first. Before the decade is out, aim to have a permanent base on the moon.

That is an admirable goal. The PR administration would support your idea.

Scratched wrote:

The Helios ending to Deus Ex.

Exactly what i'd say. Humanity led by an AI is great though i think the AI itself merge with the ideas of the Illuminati. Basically a New World Order with the visible leader an AI without another powerful force in the shadows leading with an invisible hand.

As Morpheus(Deus Ex) say:"The human being created civilization not because of willingness but of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning."

Also upon the formation of such a New World Order,immediate research into space colonization and the conversion of the moon into a military base where spaceships are constructed. Mars will be conquered and ruled by a national corporation governed by its own AI network to allow better compatibility of the inhabitants of that area as opposed to those on Earth though a main AI will control it all under the supervision of the shadow force.

A bit more realistically i'd support advancement in space travel to allow the establishment of factories on the moon where further space research will be conducted followed by contracts to companies that would allow them to work on mars.

This is an interesting read for an outsider. I've taken an interest in the US of late, you guys send out ripples, and our culture is tied heavily to yours, so I have a vested interest in US success.

Personally, I'd love to see NASA revitalised, I can only imagine what it must have been like to live during the moonlanding era. What an optimistic time it must have been (in some respects; lets ignore the threat of nuclear holocaust for now). It was the US that fronted that, but all of humanity was a part of it, and damnit I want to see more of that.

I was terribly disappointed when NASA had it's budget cut. It's like dropping the required education to middle school or even elementary. There are so many things you can cut the budget from but space flights are important not only for a nation but for all of humanity. How do they expect to unlock the door to a new era when they're taking the key away.

There are a number of issues I thought to write about, but ultimately, they really had nothing to do with my "ideal government". After some thought, it became increasingly clear that what I was longing for was not so much a change in the mechanism of government or the issues, but rather in the principles and culture surrounding how we view ourselves as citizens of a great nation.

What I'd like most in this country is a change in attitude. I'd like Americans, in general, to be committed to making the country a stronger country with a smarter and more competitive people. I want a nation of people that sees the future as brighter than the past and works toward making that a reality. I want us to set up public policies in the public interest. I want us to not be afraid to think big thoughts, take on big challenges, and achieve big things.

I may disagree vociferously with political opponents, but I would hope that we can agree that a better future is for the nation is possible. If it all devolves into one "getting one's own" or protecting one's narrow interest, it doesn't matter how much we dick around on the edges.

What I'm seeing now with this particularly destructive strain of hostage taking tea partyism is precisely the opposite. It seems, to me at least, an all-in commitment to a sense of apocalyptic pessimism. And I have no idea what to do with it.

I'd simply be happy if policy decisions were made based on actual information instead of fervently held, but ultimately unproven, beliefs.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'd simply be happy if policy decisions were made based on actual information instead of fervently held, but ultimately unproven, beliefs.

That would be nice.

To take it a little bit further, I would also say that there is such a reliance on ideological purity in the Tea Party that it seems to approach Stalinist self destructiveness. It isn't enough that other countries have conclusively proven that superior, universal health care is possible at a fraction of the cost of our own. The very concept is so offensive that it must be rejected in favor of outre ideas that exist only in theory and come with considerable social cost. It is a New Lysenkoism. It is irrelevant and insufficient that an idea works in practice. It must also comport with ideology.

edit: The same goes triple for Creationism and Climate Science Denial.

Paleocon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'd simply be happy if policy decisions were made based on actual information instead of fervently held, but ultimately unproven, beliefs.

That would be nice.

To take it a little bit further, I would also say that there is such a reliance on ideological purity in the Tea Party that it seems to approach Stalinist self destructiveness. It isn't enough that other countries have conclusively proven that superior, universal health care is possible at a fraction of the cost of our own. The very concept is so offensive that it must be rejected in favor of outre ideas that exist only in theory and come with considerable social cost. It is a New Lysenkoism. It is irrelevant and insufficient that an idea works in practice. It must also comport with ideology.

edit: The same goes triple for Creationism and Climate Science Denial.

Climate debate is quite different from creationism, odd grouping there. I don't come across many people who believe that climate doesn't change. I also don't come across many people that believe that man doesn't impact the climate in some way. What bothers most reasonable people is that the amount of change that is driven by man is not known, and yet we want to spend trillions of dollars "fixing" it. Without knowing how much is actually attributable to us you can't really know if the fixes are economically or practically viable.

The vast majority of people I talk to are for having less emissions and environmental impact but only if it's reasonably economical and convenient. The tactics of the pro AGW crowd come off as fear-mongering, which is unfortunate since a milder message would resonate more with the populace instead of OMGZ look at this hockey stick chart we're all gonna DIIIIIIEEEEE.

Maybe the grouping isn't so odd, both sides do seem to take on religion like qualities.

But I digress. Information is information, if used improperly it's just as bad as making decisions out of ignorance. Many people cling to information as truth.

bandit0013 wrote:

Climate debate is quite different from creationism, odd grouping there. I don't come across many people who believe that climate doesn't change. I also don't come across many people that believe that man doesn't impact the climate in some way. What bothers most reasonable people is that the amount of change that is driven by man is not known, and yet we want to spend trillions of dollars "fixing" it. Without knowing how much is actually attributable to us you can't really know if the fixes are economically or practically viable.

The vast majority of people I talk to are for having less emissions and environmental impact but only if it's reasonably economical and convenient. The tactics of the pro AGW crowd come off as fear-mongering, which is unfortunate since a milder message would resonate more with the populace instead of OMGZ look at this hockey stick chart we're all gonna DIIIIIIEEEEE.

Here's the thing. You're wrong. We know that a great deal of the upcoming climate change is caused by us. Even if it's not as bad as the worst estimate makes it out to be (and most of our estimates are actually pretty conservative since we don't know all the different things this round of climate change will do), it's going to be bad. Not necessarily "OMG we're all gonna die!" bad, but definitely "life is going to change dramatically" bad. The stance that "we don't really know how much is our fault and even if we did it's too expensive to fix" is incredibly shortsighted and naive. And that hockey stick chart: worth looking at because it's been confirmed by multiple other sources.

Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Climate debate is quite different from creationism, odd grouping there. I don't come across many people who believe that climate doesn't change. I also don't come across many people that believe that man doesn't impact the climate in some way. What bothers most reasonable people is that the amount of change that is driven by man is not known, and yet we want to spend trillions of dollars "fixing" it. Without knowing how much is actually attributable to us you can't really know if the fixes are economically or practically viable.

The vast majority of people I talk to are for having less emissions and environmental impact but only if it's reasonably economical and convenient. The tactics of the pro AGW crowd come off as fear-mongering, which is unfortunate since a milder message would resonate more with the populace instead of OMGZ look at this hockey stick chart we're all gonna DIIIIIIEEEEE.

Here's the thing. You're wrong. We know that a great deal of the upcoming climate change is caused by us. Even if it's not as bad as the worst estimate makes it out to be (and most of our estimates are actually pretty conservative since we don't know all the different things this round of climate change will do), it's going to be bad. Not necessarily "OMG we're all gonna die!" bad, but definitely "life is going to change dramatically" bad. The stance that "we don't really know how much is our fault and even if we did it's too expensive to fix" is incredibly shortsighted and naive. And that hockey stick chart: worth looking at because it's been confirmed by multiple other sources.

Notice how you use words like "great deal" and "estimates" when refuting my stance. Scientists still don't fully understand climate change. It is a reasonable stance to take that we should focus on being cleaner in a reasonable economical way. Also, if you actually fully buy into the conclusions by things like the UN panel you'll also note that they think it is "largely irreversible". So I hate to break it to you but the scientists are focusing on what my policy is, start reducing impact and prepare to adapt.

Also, no scientists are certain how the natural ecosystem will respond to climate change. It has been hotter before on Earth and it has worked out just fine. The models are based on what we know about how the Earth has behaved in recent history, which is a blip on the time scale.

Also, the warming is always bad thing is kind of a canard. If the earth warms as a whole some areas will see droughts and "bad things" other areas, like Canada, Russia, etc may see longer growing seasons, less energy use, etc. You can also attribute more deaths to cold than heat. But the truth of the matter is, we don't know.

This is the wrong thread for this discussion though.

bandit0013 wrote:

This is the wrong thread for this discussion though.

The thread's closed, but most of the counterpoints I'd give you can be found here.

Might be time for another Climate Change thread, especially with the CERN CLOUD results being misinterpreted left and right. Well, Right and right. But misinterpreted.

And that Michael Mann has just be cleared of "Climategate" by the National Science Foundation (along with previous clearings by Pennsylvania State University, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s inspector general, and another separate panel of scientists).