Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

IQ

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 11:12:29 AM
Then societies without a bloated underman class have yet to exist. Is this due to a lack of smart design innovation or just the usual physical laziness?
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 12:56:25 PM
I'm sure there would be those among the aristocracy who's overtly extravagant lifestyle needs a large number of servants from many civilizations but with such large amounts of the labor class allows those of a more methodical nature to exert there power more effectively and uninterrupted. Hippocrates's school of medicine would not have been built by those who attended it. Pythagoras and his followers/associates would have had far more difficulty creating their theories while lifting stones for a building.

The reason why such large numbers of the lower class existed particularly in those civilizations is because they all enjoy frivolous things. The pyramids, the Parthenon, the coliseum. All these structures of which those civilizations built many of and many similar to take a great deal of skill, labor and time to create. If you wanted a society of the few and elite you could not have such beautiful architecture, roads and buildings would be small and undecorated. There would be few buildings of entertainment or art. No concert halls or no libraries exceeding the size on a normal man's house.

Any of the ideas of the superior nation are all built on the backs of its "lower" class citizens. I put lower in brackets because in many ancient societies these lower class citizens lived rather healthy and happy lives.

So to answer you question it is a design feature that warrants so many serfs.

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 02:17:55 PM
Quote
Hippocrates's school of medicine would not have been built by those who attended it. Pythagoras and his followers/associates would have had far more difficulty creating their theories while lifting stones for a building.


We value the learning that came about, not the buildings that were created. The learning lasted, is still put to use and expanded upon. Many of the buildings did not last and probably none are put to use as intended by those who commissioned the work. These decay into corruption and dust. Learning, like living things, lives on, grows and assuming appropriately supportive minds continue to exist, may flourish indefinitely.

Quote
The reason why such large numbers of the lower class existed particularly in those civilizations is because they all enjoy frivolous things. The pyramids, the Parthenon, the coliseum. All these structures of which those civilizations built many of and many similar to take a great deal of skill, labor and time to create. If you wanted a society of the few and elite you could not have such beautiful architecture, roads and buildings would be small and undecorated.


I'm not so sure these material luxuries highlight the apex of mankind's worthiness as a species. Birds, bugs and rodents are also exquisite architects. But they never uncover the mysteries of the universe, decode its intangible mathematics, predict its Forms, comprehend its logic, structure and cycles.

That's really why we exist, not to make physical luxuries - the output of knowing, not the foundation of understanding - that decay and are forgotten in time. For all our understanding up until this time, what output are we producing for it today?
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 04:05:48 PM
Quote

We value the learning that came about, not the buildings that were created.


We're just nitpicking here, while ignoring the fact that this learning would not have come about without the building as a channel to draw the students, as in the case of many other great halls of learning in the world. I find it a bit hard to conduct useful experiments on the laws of physics on the street.

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 04:26:08 PM
Buildings do not cause learning, nor are millions of bright people incapable of physical construction for their own purposes. Why do we center the energy and time of our civilization around making things that all end up in landfill today? How about reorienting that center? What I'm finding is everyone attempting to justify having a huge population when 99% of it serves only perpetuating itself, behaviour that does not at all differ from bacteria. The top organism on the planet, unnecessary and now very costly to the rest of the natural structure, is thus far failing to justify its own existence.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 04:33:32 PM
Quote

 I'm not so sure these material luxuries highlight the apex of mankind's worthiness as a species. Birds, bugs and rodents are also exquisite architects. But they never uncover the mysteries of the universe, decode its intangible mathematics, predict its Forms, comprehend its logic, structure and cycles.
 
That's really why we exist, not to make physical luxuries - the output of knowing, not the foundation of understanding - that decay and are forgotten in time. For all our understanding up until this time, what output are we producing for it today


Does a mathematician ever use tools to aid his calculations? The architecture are the tools that help to calculate where the learning that comes from it is the mathematician. Both are important, with only the tools their is no learning to be made making the tools nothing more then eye-candy. Where if only the mathematician lives he is limited by the confines of the unaided human mind.

Architecture in itself is not the home for great civilizations but it allows for greater learning of the nature that you stated. What can an astronomer do without an observatory and telescope. What can a merchant do if there is no bazaar to set up in. Men in themselves are to limited. Buildings meant to house a particular field help to promote growth of that field.

Hospitals advance medicine. Observatories increase man's knowledge of the stars. Schools for music increase interest for the subject and create an accumulation of knowledge, not just the knowledge of one person.

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 05:02:56 PM
Why on Earth can't we have a caste of people dedicated to the logitistical upkeep of civilisation? They don't need to be stupid or inclined to revolution either.

If we kill all people who fall under the designated arbitrary level of quality, we will:

a) have less (stupid) people to support and so the amount of people required in a support structure is already reduced.

b) still have differing levels of quality in people. Instead of having a bunch of morons building our buildings, cleaning our streets and cutting the crops, we will have reasonably intelligent people doing them.

c) treat these people well to reward their deeds. It is a bane of modern society that we look down upon those with less glamourous jobs than our own.

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 05:30:30 PM
Blitzkrieg is right. No reason a little bit of robotics and a great deal of smart system design can't fill in the remaing gaps. Sorry, but most of the human race is unnecessary, costly in fact.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 07:42:20 PM
It could be hundreds of years (if ever) that technology would reach a point where any imaginable menial task could be performed by machines that would replace the need for human laborers.

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 08:38:39 PM
Personally, I don't think we need an army of robots to take care of the every day tasks of society. As Blitzkrieg said, if our countries were depopulated there would be less people to support. Besides people, we also need to cut all of the useless shit from our lives. A great ammount of labor these days seems to be dedicated creating worthless plastic trinkets. We don't need these things, they waste our time, and they pollute the earth. Also, one of the main reasons we require so much labor and support such a high population is the extreme industrialization of our societies. We've made land the limiting factor, and not labor. If we moved to more localized domestic modes of production, we'd use less land, spend less time working, and be much healthier. A standard needs to be set of a more simple and yet more fulfilling lifestyle. Not only would this make us healthier, but it would effectively curb the ammount of labor needed and the time spent on it. Instead of having strict scheduled hellhole jobs people would start their day taking care of a few essential tasks, then spend the rest of it dedicated to more interesting and productive tasks. Of course there would need to be at least some specialization and more work during certain seasons, but I think it would be somewhat close to the "original affluent society" that was hunting and gathering. I think one can balance the burdens of civilization and the freedoms of "savagery" into a happy medium which makes life a bit more stable than the harsh realities of nature without ignoring them.

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 10:58:49 PM
All this assuming (rather wildly at this point) that billions will not die anyway as the Earth prepares it's globally warming move to get rid of overpopulation ;)

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 11:11:21 PM
Quote
Personally, I don't think we need an army of robots to take care of the every day tasks of society. As Blitzkrieg said, if our countries were depopulated there would be less people to support. Besides people, we also need to cut all of the useless shit from our lives. A great ammount of labor these days seems to be dedicated creating worthless plastic trinkets. We don't need these things, they waste our time, and they pollute the earth. Also, one of the main reasons we require so much labor and support such a high population is the extreme industrialization of our societies. We've made land the limiting factor, and not labor. If we moved to more localized domestic modes of production, we'd use less land, spend less time working, and be much healthier. A standard needs to be set of a more simple and yet more fulfilling lifestyle. Not only would this make us healthier, but it would effectively curb the ammount of labor needed and the time spent on it. Instead of having strict scheduled hellhole jobs people would start their day taking care of a few essential tasks, then spend the rest of it dedicated to more interesting and productive tasks. Of course there would need to be at least some specialization and more work during certain seasons, but I think it would be somewhat close to the "original affluent society" that was hunting and gathering. I think one can balance the burdens of civilization and the freedoms of "savagery" into a happy medium which makes life a bit more stable than the harsh realities of nature without ignoring them.


You do realize that those that live off the land like farmers do far more work then most. So moving to localized communities means more work, not less. In such societies as you described all patrons must share an important part otherwise they are a serious drain on the community thus all must work very hard.

Re: IQ
November 27, 2007, 12:16:04 AM
LOL on the topic of killing retards , this is just too good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhcZRFcjbhw&eurl=

Re: IQ
November 27, 2007, 12:31:25 AM
Quote

You do realize that those that live off the land like farmers do far more work then most. So moving to localized communities means more work, not less. In such societies as you described all patrons must share an important part otherwise they are a serious drain on the community thus all must work very hard.


I didn't quite mean heavily relying on agriculture. I meant more of a mixed bag of subsistence. Everyone could practice a little bit of horticulture with some added hunting, fishing, gathering, etc. This combined with one or two local farms with staple crops would probably suffice a smaller sized community. Also, intensive agriculture doesn't always lessen the workload, it usually just moves it to somewhere else.

Re: IQ
November 27, 2007, 01:42:29 AM
Dunkelheit has the right idea. A little durable, well crafted technology along with good farming practices could take care of the subsistence. Farmers today are each feeding huge numbers of people who do not farm. That accounts for at least some of the extra labor and time spent.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793