rationalskepticism.org

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
No decent system would be as easily manipulated or corrupted

No system fully accounts for the human element because the human element isn't fully understood.

This means that all systems either decay or reform to adjust to those changing elements because of manipulation and corruption.

So I take it that given this, if we devise a system for transporiing humans to, oh, say, one of Jupiter's moons, we should not implement it and yranmsport people there because it will "decay" before we ever get there? Or before they get back? (remember, we're talking years here).

Let's just say you are no visionary. You're probably suited to being an accountant , which is not a crime but it won't get anyone to Mars or anywhere else out there.

Now, my experience includes several years on Apollo, a decade more or less, up to my neck in getting our people to the moon and safely home. We built systems, including human systems, that worked and did not "decay" or become corrupted and were so strong nobody even thought about manipulating them.

That's not an experience you've ever had, so building human systems that work is unfamiliar to you, you're stuck on all the old obsolete models, living in the past so to speak. You haven't the foggiest notion or the faintest clue about how to build human systems that work as intended, but I do ... you see, I had the experience, I've been there and done that. You wouldn't know where to begin, couldn't even imagine where to begin I don't expect.

You're just rattling, like an old worn out car. You have no idea.

Loren Michael wrote:

fact-man-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:
I understand that there's a fantasy system out there that you're thinking of, but it's just that, a fantasy. If you want to change it, you have to acknowledge that there's a system now that needs to be dealt with somehow. You're not doing that.

No, I'm not

I know. Given the relevance of that system to so many visions of a better world, including your own, that's a huge problem for you. You're ignoring the height of the mountain you have to climb. I'm just noting that you're going to die on that mountain if you ever tire of telling everyone how great the other side is that you have never seen, and once you're done telling everyone how little the naysayers know about the mountain's height and other side.

Most of what we know was "never seen" before some imaginitive and very creative character built it or showed it to us in one way or another, dude.

Besides, it isn't me who has to climb the mountain, it's everyone, and leaders will arise to lead them up it, as history has shown time and again.

Loren Michael wrote:

If no one ever imagined a better future, we'd probably not ever achieve one. But if they do, we'll stand a chance. Why are you so against this?

This is again you confusing disagreement for political difference.

You didn't answert he question, why are you so against this? Speak to it, dude, man up.

Loren Michael wrote:[
I'm against "solutions" that don't grapple with political and economic realities.

You've never examined my solution so you cannot know this, thinking you do is just blind arrogance, with a heaping shovel full of condescension and bullshit.

I'd agree that examining my sysem takes some effort and a few brain cells and even some courage. You seem to be lacking in these qualities because you've consistently refused to do a close examination. Maybe it's fear, I dunno.

Loren Michael wrote:
This is why I spend my time on things like the aforementioned Senate thread, saying things like that if people want to get things done, they need to account for that.

You described the problem but you never said how it might be repaired or even if its reparable. A solution has to be specified, dude, you never specified. You just kept describing the problem.

Loren Michael wrote:
People who agitate for a better future without acknowledging the heavy lifting are less than useless to their own goal.

I've acknowledged the heavy lifting a thousand times, are you kidding?

Ive also said it's not an impossible task.

I've also said it's a lot like a pot of water placed over heat on a stove, which because we know the facts about thermodynamics, we can predict will come to a boil, and whatta ya know, we do it every time. My science does that, it predicts the next most probable state, which is the system I have tried to elaborate here on several occasions only to be rudely interrupted and ceaselessly ridiculed and really quite prevented from doing what I set out to do, a quashing you participated in with some glee, i might add.

So get it straight dude, or STFU about it. I'm not going to do this, everyone is going to do it, except those who jump from tall buildings when the market smokes, a lot of those gamblers no doubt. I am predicting the next most probable state. Try to get that through your head.

The water boils. We can predict this. Boiling is the next most probable state after applying heat.

And your assertion that we don't fully understand humans and therefore can't build human systems that won't decay or become corrupted ... is bogus. We don't know eveything about human nature, but we know enough to do what we have to do and if you think not then move over and get out of the way of those who do, you're holding up the show.

In terms of stress and difficulty, nothing in politics, governance, or economics or any combination of the three holds a candle to what the crew of Apollo 13 experienced. Nothing! And they did not fail. They did not come unglued. They did not leap from a window in their tall building. They did the job, and nobody could have deterred them from it with an offer of a $50 billion bribe.

Get real, dude, read your own posts, but do it honestly, they're flopping like a tuna