Sunday, September 29, 2013

Experimenting with laws in experimental cities

Why don't we come up with a solution everyone would like. If people prove that the obamacare/ACA will work then will everyone accept it? I propose we start off implementing this law in experimental cities where many experimental laws could be tested for efficacy and tested to foresee any problems with world wide implementation of these experimental laws. 
I have come up with the perfect solution to avoid a government shutdown. We could segregate society based on which laws and programs they want to obey and pay for. So for the affordable care act we could create experimental zones where the law and program will be in effect. That way people who want it can go to those places and people who do not want the program can stay where they are. Cities could be created with unique laws like the affordable care act. These zones could be supplemented by border culture mixing zones where people who fundamentally disagree with each other can synthesize their fundamental differences of belief. Constant communication between those differing zones would be required to keep the peace and to challenge deeply held beliefs and spread good ideas.
I have thought about making a nature mimicking plan for the US society to follow if they choose to. It will include building "Social Contract" Communities and cities where people must agree to obey a set of laws and rules that restrict the ability to harm others and require people to make progress for society rather than serving individual interests  exclusively.
The book called "Worldchanging: A user's guide to the 21st century"  closes its last chapter about planetary matters by speaking about the value of imagining the future for the world: "The bravest and most important thing any of us can do is to actively imagine a much better future: not to imagine it in the casual sense of daydreaming about it, but to imagine it in the way an architect imagines a house she is planning to build--to imagine it as reality, to try to see it whole, to lovingly dwell on its details, and to see ourselves walking through it one day."

I have been reading this guide a lot in the past few weeks over 100 pages of the 500+ pages of the book. I recommend it. 
Friend me and buy the book here: Worldchanging, Revised and Updated Edition: A User's Guide for the 21st Century

Thursday, September 26, 2013

What is the ideal goal for your life and for society?

Please answer the question and/ or critique my answer in a way that is comprehensive and supported by reasons:
The ideal goal of my life and of society should be to make the world a better place. What a better place is exactly can be determined by observation, experience, and critical and creative thinking. We should use science and reason to determine what a better world is like and how to make it happen. One way to determine what is good is by observing ourselves and what we are made of. Society is the most complex, most good, most beautiful system known to man. There is a pattern of increasing beauty, goodness, and complexity as we look at the smallest unit of life to the largest unit of life. The larger it is the longer it lives and the more efficient the system becomes. There is a proven law that demonstrates this trend. We need to grow to stay alive. We are not living if we are not growing in some way. All life must grow or improve itself or it is not life. We need to identify with the most good entity and that is society, so we should include society in our selves and identities. To understand this trend just look at the smallest unit of matter known so far, the particle or the smallest constituents of atoms beyond the proton. It has complex behavior due to its association with various forces and fundamental interactions. It has an meaningful identity composed of its many attributes like its momentum (the direction and speed of its movement) and its relations to space and time.

The ethical and reasonable distribution of knowledge

Now secular humanism comes close as a solution to the problems of society like dogmatic thinking, but I do not feel like it would be right to allow completely unguided free inquiry. For example, should we allow people to learn how to harm others? The knowledge of how to harm society is not good for anyone to learn except those who are fighting to prevent harm to society. This knowledge should only be allowed for those who have learned how to do good for society. Without the knowledge of how to be good for society then the knowledge of how to harm will result in people doing harm to society.  This way of releasing powerful knowledge only to those who have good intentions will benefit everyone. We should not allow terrorists to learn about how to lead an organization since this is like giving them weapons of mass destruction. A strong understanding of what is good and how to do good will influence people to be more good as they will learn the value of goodness and societal growth. We should not enable those intent on doing harm to do more harm. This practice is different than totalitarian and selfish acts of censorship. It is more like the ethical and reasonable distribution of knowledge. Would you agree?