Thatâs true. But it is that radical idea that engaged your interest, so sometimes it works. Iâm not claiming to have the perfect engagement system etc, again, Iâm just doing what I know how to do.
The idea that engaged my interest was that of the exponential knowledge explosion. I thought there was a good idea there, and I replied since I had seen a lot of your posts recently and nobody else was replying to them. I replied in spite of, not because of, the proposed solution. I imagine itâs quite likely that others decided not to reply because of the proposed solution as well.
I apologise for misleading you thereâIâll focus just on the exponential knowledge explosion side of things to help correct that.
Me: In the real world, I cannot see any sort of realistic path towards your solution,
You: How long have you been trying? Today and yesterday?
The above line by me was an invitation for you to share a path. Youâre rightâmy inability to see a path after five minutes isnât a strong indication that no such path exists. On the other hand, youâve had this idea for yearsâif you donât have a path forward, thatâs much stronger evidence for the ideaâs untenability. If you do have a path forward, this would be a good thing to add to your argument.
You seem to have the idea that people are disagreeing with you because your ideas are strange and outside the box.
This sentence was referring entirely to the EA Forumâpeople tend to be more tolerant of weird ideas here than in most places on the internet.
The idea that engaged my interest was that of the exponential knowledge explosion
Ok, great, thanks. As you can now see, Iâm obsessed with this.
The knowledge explosion idea and world without men idea are somewhat linked in my mind. Meaning, if violent men werenât creating havoc all over the planet, there would be less reason to worry about the knowledge explosion. If there was no knowledge explosion, thereâd be less reason to worry about violent men.
I do have a plan for moving forward on the world without men concept. The plan is to recognize that no single human being, certainly not me, can meet such an enormous challenge, so itâs necessary to engage many bright minds to work on the issue. That is, I have faith that once many bright minds are engaged, progress can be made. Iâm asking readers to have as much faith in themselves as I have in them. Instead of chanting âwe canâtâ we might instead choose to start believing that we can.
I have a few detail ideas, such as financial incentives to reward female babies etc. Admittedly I am no where near a complete solution. Iâm puzzled as to why anyone would think that I was, should be, or could be.
My main contribution, as I see it, is to boil down all the endless complexity in to a simple verifiable truth. The overwhelming vast majority of violence is committed by men. Itâs not human violence that weâre talking about, itâs male violence. Being clear on this creates a target of opportunity.
The other thing I hope to contribute is to articulate the revolutionary positive benefits that would flow from radically reducing male violence. If this problem could be solved, the pay day would be almost beyond imagination.
The bumper sticker version is this:
The marriage between violent men and an ever accelerating knowledge explosion is unsustainable. One of them has to go.
Well, youâll probably need to buy a big truck to get all that on the bumper.
The marriage between violent men and an ever accelerating knowledge explosion is unsustainable. One of them has to go.
I think our core crux here is that if this is true, I would rather tackle it from the âever accelerating knowledge explosionâ side or the âviolentâ side rather than the âmenâ side.
Good luck with your ideas, man. Youâve certainly given me a new idea to think about (knowledge explosion) and I hope Iâve done the same.
I think our core crux here is that if this is true, I would rather tackle it from the âever accelerating knowledge explosionâ side or the âviolentâ side rather than the âmenâ side.
Ok, thatâs cool. To each their own of course. But we donât really have to choose, we can investigate both at the same time.
Should you start writing about the knowledge explosion side of things you will find it just as challenging as the âworld without menâ side. Search for my article âOur Relationship With Knowledgeâ on this site, itâs been down voted like crazy, no engagement at all. Thatâs pretty normal.
The science community in particular (those who have the most cultural authority on such issues) will view your writing on limiting the knowledge explosion much the same way the Catholic Church viewed atheists in the 12th century. You will be dismissed, ridiculed, scorned, deleted, banned etc. But probably not burned at the stake, so thatâs good. :-)
If I was pressed to choose, Iâd probably agree the âworld without menâ idea makes people more hysterical. But a notion that we canât have never ending unlimited goodies from the knowledge explosion does not exactly delight people, to say the least.
Both of these ideas are wildly ambitious. Neither has much of a chance until MAYBE after some large historical event which undermines the assumption of the group consensus that we can somehow magically have our cake and eat it too, radical change for the better, without radical change.
The idea that engaged my interest was that of the exponential knowledge explosion. I thought there was a good idea there, and I replied since I had seen a lot of your posts recently and nobody else was replying to them. I replied in spite of, not because of, the proposed solution. I imagine itâs quite likely that others decided not to reply because of the proposed solution as well.
I apologise for misleading you thereâIâll focus just on the exponential knowledge explosion side of things to help correct that.
The above line by me was an invitation for you to share a path. Youâre rightâmy inability to see a path after five minutes isnât a strong indication that no such path exists. On the other hand, youâve had this idea for yearsâif you donât have a path forward, thatâs much stronger evidence for the ideaâs untenability. If you do have a path forward, this would be a good thing to add to your argument.
This sentence was referring entirely to the EA Forumâpeople tend to be more tolerant of weird ideas here than in most places on the internet.
Ok, great, thanks. As you can now see, Iâm obsessed with this.
The knowledge explosion idea and world without men idea are somewhat linked in my mind. Meaning, if violent men werenât creating havoc all over the planet, there would be less reason to worry about the knowledge explosion. If there was no knowledge explosion, thereâd be less reason to worry about violent men.
I do have a plan for moving forward on the world without men concept. The plan is to recognize that no single human being, certainly not me, can meet such an enormous challenge, so itâs necessary to engage many bright minds to work on the issue. That is, I have faith that once many bright minds are engaged, progress can be made. Iâm asking readers to have as much faith in themselves as I have in them. Instead of chanting âwe canâtâ we might instead choose to start believing that we can.
I have a few detail ideas, such as financial incentives to reward female babies etc. Admittedly I am no where near a complete solution. Iâm puzzled as to why anyone would think that I was, should be, or could be.
My main contribution, as I see it, is to boil down all the endless complexity in to a simple verifiable truth. The overwhelming vast majority of violence is committed by men. Itâs not human violence that weâre talking about, itâs male violence. Being clear on this creates a target of opportunity.
The other thing I hope to contribute is to articulate the revolutionary positive benefits that would flow from radically reducing male violence. If this problem could be solved, the pay day would be almost beyond imagination.
The bumper sticker version is this:
The marriage between violent men and an ever accelerating knowledge explosion is unsustainable. One of them has to go.
Well, youâll probably need to buy a big truck to get all that on the bumper.
I think our core crux here is that if this is true, I would rather tackle it from the âever accelerating knowledge explosionâ side or the âviolentâ side rather than the âmenâ side.
Good luck with your ideas, man. Youâve certainly given me a new idea to think about (knowledge explosion) and I hope Iâve done the same.
Ok, thatâs cool. To each their own of course. But we donât really have to choose, we can investigate both at the same time.
Should you start writing about the knowledge explosion side of things you will find it just as challenging as the âworld without menâ side. Search for my article âOur Relationship With Knowledgeâ on this site, itâs been down voted like crazy, no engagement at all. Thatâs pretty normal.
The science community in particular (those who have the most cultural authority on such issues) will view your writing on limiting the knowledge explosion much the same way the Catholic Church viewed atheists in the 12th century. You will be dismissed, ridiculed, scorned, deleted, banned etc. But probably not burned at the stake, so thatâs good. :-)
If I was pressed to choose, Iâd probably agree the âworld without menâ idea makes people more hysterical. But a notion that we canât have never ending unlimited goodies from the knowledge explosion does not exactly delight people, to say the least.
Both of these ideas are wildly ambitious. Neither has much of a chance until MAYBE after some large historical event which undermines the assumption of the group consensus that we can somehow magically have our cake and eat it too, radical change for the better, without radical change.