THERE'S NO AIR!
I have to GET OUT!
OUT!
There's no air out here either.
There is air here.
It is thick and wet and full of weird shit that will swell your throat shut.
End result: NO AIR.
It occurs to me that current ideas of government fail because they approach human behavior in one of three flawed ways:
1. They don't account for it in their system (communism, free market, etc), while claiming that it is in fact directly derived from humans.
2. They say "this is how humans should be, how do we make them change?"
3. They say "humans are shit, you can't change that, lock them up. They must be punished for being what they are."
There's another method, of course, there always is. How about a system in which individuals are encouraged and assisted in reaching their own best potential? Testing and benchmarks are, of course, counter-productive in this, which is why I think this idea may also be flawed...Americans have to see these things, or they don't believe anything is happening. Note also that the free market approach doesn't do anything like what I'm suggesting, and neither does authoritarianism.
But there might be a germ of an idea, here. If humans are allowed to approach their potential, then society as a whole must therefore improve.
I don't know how to do this just yet. It's just an idea I had while trying to suck vacuum up on this here mountain, so everybody shut up.
Interesting idea. Thoughts must be thunk about this.
Maybe if we made sure nobody was malnourished, paid teachers a wage that reflects their importance in society (to attract and keep good teachers, and keep them secure enough to stay focused on the job). Maybe if we rigorously and methodically attacked the hair-shirt punishment freak puritan ethic thsi country has been cursed with, so we could stop jailing people for ridiculous shit that should AT MOST involve a fine or public hollering-at...A judge should have the power to merely call a dumbshit a dumbshit, publicly. Sometimes, that's all that's warranted.
Maybe if we stopped minding every other country's business, and started minding our own? I'm sure we could get by with 4 carrier groups instead of 12 (HELLO! TOJO IS DEAD!). I'm almost CERTAIN we could fund a Montresori-style school system for the entire country with the savings.
Yes, yes, I know this is moonshine. But the problems first have to be IDENTIFIED before you can actually ADDRESS them. Basic troubleshooting. Instead of being reactive, maybe we ought to be a little more proactive, or even predictive in our national maintenance.
Here's the big thing: the current system is an abject failure. However, one question I always ask revolutionaries is "Which system would you put in place if victorious?" They ALWAYS answer with an idea that has failed in the past. "Restore the constitution"...The constitution is what got us in this mess. "Collectivism"...Yeah, go ask someone in Kamchatka how THAT worked out.
So, if I'm advocating change myself, I think maybe I better have some fucking answers as to what I'd do BEFORE I agitate for that change.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 04:50:52 PM
Maybe if we made sure nobody was malnourished, paid teachers a wage that reflects their importance in society (to attract and keep good teachers, and keep them secure enough to stay focused on the job). Maybe if we rigorously and methodically attacked the hair-shirt punishment freak puritan ethic thsi country has been cursed with, so we could stop jailing people for ridiculous shit that should AT MOST involve a fine or public hollering-at...A judge should have the power to merely call a dumbshit a dumbshit, publicly. Sometimes, that's all that's warranted.
I'm very much in favor of this. The desire, the
need to see someone strung up in response to any bad thing that happens is an extremely toxic element of our culture. We equate punishment with fixing the problems that the ones being punished created (if they are indeed responsible at all). Once the punishment has been doled out, we usually forget the problem itself.
Quote from: Cainad on April 10, 2013, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 04:50:52 PM
Maybe if we made sure nobody was malnourished, paid teachers a wage that reflects their importance in society (to attract and keep good teachers, and keep them secure enough to stay focused on the job). Maybe if we rigorously and methodically attacked the hair-shirt punishment freak puritan ethic thsi country has been cursed with, so we could stop jailing people for ridiculous shit that should AT MOST involve a fine or public hollering-at...A judge should have the power to merely call a dumbshit a dumbshit, publicly. Sometimes, that's all that's warranted.
I'm very much in favor of this. The desire, the need to see someone strung up in response to any bad thing that happens is an extremely toxic element of our culture. We equate punishment with fixing the problems that the ones being punished created (if they are indeed responsible at all). Once the punishment has been doled out, we usually forget the problem itself.
Yes. We also demand punishment for things that aren't crimes at all, or LOOK like crimes, but then turn out NOT to be crimes after all. The recent URI incident, and the outrage on its facebook page, is all the example I need give.
I think some wrong lessons were learned in the last century, and I'm not sure how they got learned. Take the two biggest social change movements that happened in the 20th Century (in America) -- Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights. These two movements started as all great movements start out -- from the bottom up, with more and more people becoming sick and goddamn tired of the way things are, and deciding to live in a world where things aren't that way.
Somehow, when the history books were written (or taught, or both), people got the idea that the hard-fought equality (or progress toward equality, anyway) that was won in those movements was somehow a product of things like the 19th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. And while yes, those pieces of legislation were -- and are -- crucial to the eventual and continued success of these movements, they are not the springs from which equality flows. They never would have happened if people weren't out there, being all free and shit, without permission.
But now we have this idea that the quickest way from Here to There is via the government and convincing lawmakers to send down enlightenment from Mount Olympus or wherever the fuck we seem to think those overblown lawyers live. But just as you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate liberty, either. You can't pass a law that says "Shit is hereby fixed." That isn't where liberty comes from.
It sounds quaint, and for some reason it seems counter-intuitive, but government follows a popular charge for social progress. Government does not lead those charges. You will never, ever find a government anywhere -- no matter how advanced or progressive you think it is -- that will ever be very good at paving the road to equality so the masses can have a smooth ride all the way to Utopia. Like any road, it gets built first by a ton of people walking that way before there's a fucking road there, breaking their legs, stubbing their toes, and spraining their ankles along the way until finally somebody notices that "hey! Everybody's going this way, let's put a grader on that shit and lay down some pavement."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 04:50:52 PM
Here's the big thing: the current system is an abject failure. However, one question I always ask revolutionaries is "Which system would you put in place if victorious?" They ALWAYS answer with an idea that has failed in the past. "Restore the constitution"...The constitution is what got us in this mess. "Collectivism"...Yeah, go ask someone in Kamchatka how THAT worked out.
This, this and thrice, THIS!
I have no answer either. My opinion on what to do about it has always been along the same lines as the Hulk - smash. Break the bit that's fucked and see if whatever replaces it turns out to be an improvement.
Of course that was back in my "activist" days, when I was young, dumb and idealistic. When I actually thought it was possible, or even desirable to lead the world to some kind of enlightened utopia. What I do now is look for bits where whatever the hell it is either can't touch me or has no objection to my activity and I try to exist in those places to the exclusion of the shit I don't like.
The rest of it, for the most part, seems to take care of destroying itself and then rebuilding, with a net result that I hope ends up being better than it was but have a rough plan for, in the event that it's not.
Quote from: V3X on April 10, 2013, 05:17:27 PM
I think some wrong lessons were learned in the last century, and I'm not sure how they got learned. Take the two biggest social change movements that happened in the 20th Century (in America) -- Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights. These two movements started as all great movements start out -- from the bottom up, with more and more people becoming sick and goddamn tired of the way things are, and deciding to live in a world where things aren't that way.
Somehow, when the history books were written (or taught, or both), people got the idea that the hard-fought equality (or progress toward equality, anyway) that was won in those movements was somehow a product of things like the 19th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. And while yes, those pieces of legislation were -- and are -- crucial to the eventual and continued success of these movements, they are not the springs from which equality flows. They never would have happened if people weren't out there, being all free and shit, without permission.
But now we have this idea that the quickest way from Here to There is via the government and convincing lawmakers to send down enlightenment from Mount Olympus or wherever the fuck we seem to think those overblown lawyers live. But just as you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate liberty, either. You can't pass a law that says "Shit is hereby fixed." That isn't where liberty comes from.
It sounds quaint, and for some reason it seems counter-intuitive, but government follows a popular charge for social progress. Government does not lead those charges. You will never, ever find a government anywhere -- no matter how advanced or progressive you think it is -- that will ever be very good at paving the road to equality so the masses can have a smooth ride all the way to Utopia. Like any road, it gets built first by a ton of people walking that way before there's a fucking road there, breaking their legs, stubbing their toes, and spraining their ankles along the way until finally somebody notices that "hey! Everybody's going this way, let's put a grader on that shit and lay down some pavement."
The thing is, I have become convinced that our government is no longer capable of even following with the legislation, anymore. The system is, I have come to realize, irreparably broken. It was a design failure, at that...The founders accounted for the monkey, but they didn't account for exactly how much monkey there actually IS. The system worked until the combination of a large population and mass communication gave the steering wheel to the most brain-damaged monkeys.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 05:21:10 PM
Quote from: V3X on April 10, 2013, 05:17:27 PM
I think some wrong lessons were learned in the last century, and I'm not sure how they got learned. Take the two biggest social change movements that happened in the 20th Century (in America) -- Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights. These two movements started as all great movements start out -- from the bottom up, with more and more people becoming sick and goddamn tired of the way things are, and deciding to live in a world where things aren't that way.
Somehow, when the history books were written (or taught, or both), people got the idea that the hard-fought equality (or progress toward equality, anyway) that was won in those movements was somehow a product of things like the 19th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. And while yes, those pieces of legislation were -- and are -- crucial to the eventual and continued success of these movements, they are not the springs from which equality flows. They never would have happened if people weren't out there, being all free and shit, without permission.
But now we have this idea that the quickest way from Here to There is via the government and convincing lawmakers to send down enlightenment from Mount Olympus or wherever the fuck we seem to think those overblown lawyers live. But just as you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate liberty, either. You can't pass a law that says "Shit is hereby fixed." That isn't where liberty comes from.
It sounds quaint, and for some reason it seems counter-intuitive, but government follows a popular charge for social progress. Government does not lead those charges. You will never, ever find a government anywhere -- no matter how advanced or progressive you think it is -- that will ever be very good at paving the road to equality so the masses can have a smooth ride all the way to Utopia. Like any road, it gets built first by a ton of people walking that way before there's a fucking road there, breaking their legs, stubbing their toes, and spraining their ankles along the way until finally somebody notices that "hey! Everybody's going this way, let's put a grader on that shit and lay down some pavement."
The thing is, I have become convinced that our government is no longer capable of even following with the legislation, anymore. The system is, I have come to realize, irreparably broken. It was a design failure, at that...The founders accounted for the monkey, but they didn't account for exactly how much monkey there actually IS. The system worked until the combination of a large population and mass communication gave the steering wheel to the most brain-damaged monkeys.
I don't think there's any such thing as a system that isn't irreparably broken. Personally I advocate popular, widespread disregard of the government -- at least, the Federal government. Not the dissolution of that government, just a general apathy about it and what it has to say. That won't
fix anything, but I think people should go ahead and live their lives however they please, and if Uncle Sam gets too worked up about it, well, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. But they can't lock us
all up, unless we walk into the prisons of our own volition. And failing to be free in spite of the consequences, we might as well string barbed wire across both borders and all the beaches anyway.
Honest to fuck question:
Is the human race becoming collectively smarter or dumber?
Given that the sum of all knowledge, rapidly becoming universally available is a factor in all of this, like I'm getting that the smart primates these days are capable of a much higher level of smart than their predecessors in a way that's not inversely prevalent in the ones dragging the averages down the way - they aint capable of any greater feats of dumb, beyond population growth.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 10, 2013, 05:31:11 PM
Honest to fuck question:
Is the human race becoming collectively smarter or dumber?
Given that the sum of all knowledge, rapidly becoming universally available is a factor in all of this, like I'm getting that the smart primates these days are capable of a much higher level of smart than their predecessors in a way that's not inversely prevalent in the ones dragging the averages down the way - they aint capable of any greater feats of dumb, beyond population growth.
I think the answer depends on the value you use for "smarter" and "dumber." Compared to what might have been the general definitions of those terms 200 years ago, I think humanity is becoming collectively smarter. But in relation to what is increasingly available as known potential, we are losing ground and becoming collectively dumber.
200 years ago, I might have been
impressed with the idea of "Separate but Equal," for example, from the point of view of someone working to eradicate slavery. But is what we have
now, with defacto and euphemized institutional racism, any farther away from Jim Crow than Jim Crow was from outright slavery? I don't believe so. And I think that principal applies to a lot of areas, not just social justice but science too. We are moving at a pretty fast pace toward advancement, but for everything we learn, we see the potential to learn three times as much. So the disparity between what we
have achieved and what we know we
could achieve is outpacing our ability to achieve it.
If that makes any sense.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 10, 2013, 05:31:11 PM
Honest to fuck question:
Is the human race becoming collectively smarter or dumber?
Given that the sum of all knowledge, rapidly becoming universally available is a factor in all of this, like I'm getting that the smart primates these days are capable of a much higher level of smart than their predecessors in a way that's not inversely prevalent in the ones dragging the averages down the way - they aint capable of any greater feats of dumb, beyond population growth.
Collectively dumber, and collectively more civilized. The two are linked.
Primitive societies, after all, select for intelligence.
Urbanized societies select for disease resistance.
Therefore, with less selection for intelligence, genetic load is created, as dumb people are allowed to survive and propagate.
There is no ethical means to escape this dilemma.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 05:46:11 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 10, 2013, 05:31:11 PM
Honest to fuck question:
Is the human race becoming collectively smarter or dumber?
Given that the sum of all knowledge, rapidly becoming universally available is a factor in all of this, like I'm getting that the smart primates these days are capable of a much higher level of smart than their predecessors in a way that's not inversely prevalent in the ones dragging the averages down the way - they aint capable of any greater feats of dumb, beyond population growth.
Collectively dumber, and collectively more civilized. The two are linked.
Primitive societies, after all, select for intelligence.
Urbanized societies select for disease resistance.
Therefore, with less selection for intelligence, genetic load is created, as dumb people are allowed to survive and propagate.
There is no ethical means to escape this dilemma.
The average IQ has been steadily and significantly on the rise in the US for the last 60 years. It's called the Flynn Effect and no one's entirely sure why it's happening, although there are several theories. It's also occurring in other parts of the world, to varying degrees.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 10, 2013, 05:50:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 05:46:11 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 10, 2013, 05:31:11 PM
Honest to fuck question:
Is the human race becoming collectively smarter or dumber?
Given that the sum of all knowledge, rapidly becoming universally available is a factor in all of this, like I'm getting that the smart primates these days are capable of a much higher level of smart than their predecessors in a way that's not inversely prevalent in the ones dragging the averages down the way - they aint capable of any greater feats of dumb, beyond population growth.
Collectively dumber, and collectively more civilized. The two are linked.
Primitive societies, after all, select for intelligence.
Urbanized societies select for disease resistance.
Therefore, with less selection for intelligence, genetic load is created, as dumb people are allowed to survive and propagate.
There is no ethical means to escape this dilemma.
The average IQ has been steadily and significantly on the rise in the US for the last 60 years. It's called the Flynn Effect and no one's entirely sure why it's happening, although there are several theories. It's also occurring in other parts of the world, to varying degrees.
Doesn't seem possible, but I'm wrong about all kinds of shit. I shall have to read up on this...
HOWEVER: Is IQ a measurement of intelligence or not? I can't keep up.
Ok, a small spark happened in my head. I gotta lotta shit to do, so fractured sentences.
Constitution was written with 13 states and 2.5M people. Land mass went as far west as Mississippi river.
Worked pretty well.
US now 300M+, 50 states, and a land mass more than twice original size.
Not working well.
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
or
Group country into four states, and those states have principalities with the same shape as the current US states.
HOOOOKay, SO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
QuoteThe Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.
Does this mean that people are culturally more standardized, or that they're getting smarter?
As for the rest of the world, it's even happening in Scotland:
QuoteTest score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, subjects born over a 100 year period were compared in Des Moines, Iowa, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries.[1] This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary.[2]
Also:
QuoteUlric Neisser estimates that using the IQ values of today the average IQ of the U.S. in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior,' but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also writes that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."
So, humans are smarter, or...? :?
And then THIS fucks up all my hypothesis:
QuoteThere is debate about whether the rise in IQ scores also corresponds to a rise in intelligence, or a rise in skills related to taking IQ tests. Because children attend school longer now and have become much more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one might expect the greatest gains to occur on such school content-related tests as vocabulary, arithmetic or general information. Just the opposite is the case: abilities such as these have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional decreases over the years. The greatest Flynn effects occur instead for tests that measure latent factors. For example, Dutch conscripts gained 21 points during only 30 years, or 7 points per decade, between 1952 and 1982.[9] But this rise in IQ test scores is not wholly explained by an increase in general intelligence. Studies have shown that while test scores have improved over time, the improvement is not fully correlated with latent factors related to intelligence.[13] Rushton asserts that the "gains in IQ over time (the Lynn-Flynn effect) are unrelated to g".[8][14] Researchers have shown that the IQ gains described by the Flynn effect are due in part to increasing intelligence, and in part to increases in test-specific skills.
So, yeah, this seems to be a thing.
Which indicates that the anthropologists might be wrong about which environments select for what.
Or there's a connection that is not being seen, which allows both to be true.
I personally think IQ tests and the like are a heap of shit designed to give some a special feeling and little else.
I'm fairly sure there are some that can effectively arbirtarilay rate intelligence in certain areas. Unfortunately the tests are rarely designed to test multiple different kinds of intelligence.
I would suspect that the overall level of human intelligence rising has a lot to do with literacy rates in developing countries. If I recall correctly that was the one biggest factors in developing nations. The others being Water and food.
This is probably where I realise I should have read the thread and not the last couple of posts. Ah well.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
This is probably the only solution, but I can't see it happening without catastrophic and very immediate conflict.
Yeah, I knew I was dreaming when I wrote this, so forgive me if it goes astray... But when I woke up this morning, I coulda sworn it was judgment day. The sky was all purple, there were people running everywhere. Trying to run from the destruction, but you know I didn't even care.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:15:20 PM
Yeah, I knew I was dreaming when I wrote this, so forgive me if it goes astray... But when I woke up this morning, I coulda sworn it was judgment day. The sky was all purple, there were people running everywhere. Trying to run from the destruction, but you know I didn't even care.
That's kinda the point. Brain-damaged brain-storming.
And you got our yesterday. The sun was a pale disc in the sky, as the sandstorm blotted out the world. The sky was baby-shit yellow, and we didn't even have Prince to save us.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 10, 2013, 06:12:33 PM
I personally think IQ tests and the like are a heap of shit designed to give some a special feeling and little else.
I'm fairly sure there are some that can effectively arbirtarilay rate intelligence in certain areas. Unfortunately the tests are rarely designed to test multiple different kinds of intelligence.
I would suspect that the overall level of human intelligence rising has a lot to do with literacy rates in developing countries. If I recall correctly that was the one biggest factors in developing nations. The others being Water and food.
This is probably where I realise I should have read the thread and not the last couple of posts. Ah well.
They fairly accurately measure a somewhat arbitrary type of logic that is useful for solving certain types of puzzles.
It's not a global measure, so rising literacy rates in developing countries are not effecting it. You should read about it, it's quite interesting and has been studied fairly extensively.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Ok, a small spark happened in my head. I gotta lotta shit to do, so fractured sentences.
Constitution was written with 13 states and 2.5M people. Land mass went as far west as Mississippi river.
Worked pretty well.
US now 300M+, 50 states, and a land mass more than twice original size.
Not working well.
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
or
Group country into four states, and those states have principalities with the same shape as the current US states.
When I was working on a scifi book a while back this was part of the back story. New England has very little in common with Arizona, and while I'm sure we could be perfectly cordial neighbors, I don't think living in the same house is working out.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 11, 2013, 05:14:17 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Ok, a small spark happened in my head. I gotta lotta shit to do, so fractured sentences.
Constitution was written with 13 states and 2.5M people. Land mass went as far west as Mississippi river.
Worked pretty well.
US now 300M+, 50 states, and a land mass more than twice original size.
Not working well.
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
or
Group country into four states, and those states have principalities with the same shape as the current US states.
When I was working on a scifi book a while back this was part of the back story. New England has very little in common with Arizona, and while I'm sure we could be perfectly cordial neighbors, I don't think living in the same house is working out.
Fuck that! Living in the same house with New England is
the only thing that stops my state from completely diving into the shallow end of an empty pool.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 11, 2013, 05:14:17 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Ok, a small spark happened in my head. I gotta lotta shit to do, so fractured sentences.
Constitution was written with 13 states and 2.5M people. Land mass went as far west as Mississippi river.
Worked pretty well.
US now 300M+, 50 states, and a land mass more than twice original size.
Not working well.
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
or
Group country into four states, and those states have principalities with the same shape as the current US states.
When I was working on a scifi book a while back this was part of the back story. New England has very little in common with Arizona, and while I'm sure we could be perfectly cordial neighbors, I don't think living in the same house is working out.
dont leave me alone with these people
Quote from: V3X on April 11, 2013, 05:19:58 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 11, 2013, 05:14:17 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Ok, a small spark happened in my head. I gotta lotta shit to do, so fractured sentences.
Constitution was written with 13 states and 2.5M people. Land mass went as far west as Mississippi river.
Worked pretty well.
US now 300M+, 50 states, and a land mass more than twice original size.
Not working well.
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
or
Group country into four states, and those states have principalities with the same shape as the current US states.
When I was working on a scifi book a while back this was part of the back story. New England has very little in common with Arizona, and while I'm sure we could be perfectly cordial neighbors, I don't think living in the same house is working out.
Fuck that! Living in the same house with New England is the only thing that stops my state from completely diving into the shallow end of an empty pool.
MAYBE IF YOU DIDN'T LISTEN TO EXPERIMENTAL BEEP-BOOP ALL DAY WE'D STICK AROUND.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 11, 2013, 05:22:04 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 11, 2013, 05:14:17 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Ok, a small spark happened in my head. I gotta lotta shit to do, so fractured sentences.
Constitution was written with 13 states and 2.5M people. Land mass went as far west as Mississippi river.
Worked pretty well.
US now 300M+, 50 states, and a land mass more than twice original size.
Not working well.
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
or
Group country into four states, and those states have principalities with the same shape as the current US states.
When I was working on a scifi book a while back this was part of the back story. New England has very little in common with Arizona, and while I'm sure we could be perfectly cordial neighbors, I don't think living in the same house is working out.
dont leave me alone with these people
You could escape (you KNOW we'd put up barbed wire and shit, first thing, right?) and come live up here, if you weren't afraid of all the nature we let run loose up here.
Quote from: Luna on April 11, 2013, 10:51:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 11, 2013, 05:22:04 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 11, 2013, 05:14:17 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Ok, a small spark happened in my head. I gotta lotta shit to do, so fractured sentences.
Constitution was written with 13 states and 2.5M people. Land mass went as far west as Mississippi river.
Worked pretty well.
US now 300M+, 50 states, and a land mass more than twice original size.
Not working well.
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
or
Group country into four states, and those states have principalities with the same shape as the current US states.
When I was working on a scifi book a while back this was part of the back story. New England has very little in common with Arizona, and while I'm sure we could be perfectly cordial neighbors, I don't think living in the same house is working out.
dont leave me alone with these people
You could escape (you KNOW we'd put up barbed wire and shit, first thing, right?) and come live up here, if you weren't afraid of all the nature we let run loose up here.
Gravity is too high. We are all pinned to the desert floor, helplessly shitting ourselves.
No, scratch that. We all love it here, and we'd never leave. SEE, MAMA TUCSON! WE LOVE YOU! WE'RE DANCING JUST AS FAST AS WE CAN!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
This is probably the only solution, but I can't see it happening without catastrophic and very immediate conflict.
There was a cheesy science fiction movie from the 80's that has a fix for the conflict. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/
All conflicts are resolved by fighting matches between giant robots.
Quote from: McGrupp on April 12, 2013, 05:14:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
This is probably the only solution, but I can't see it happening without catastrophic and very immediate conflict.
There was a cheesy science fiction movie from the 80's that has a fix for the conflict. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/
All conflicts are resolved by fighting matches between giant robots.
Saw that. It was TERRIBLE.
Which means, logically, it is THE FUTURE.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 12, 2013, 05:51:27 PM
Which means, logically, it is THE FUTURE.
No, the future isn't that kind. There will be no big stompy robots.
I can tell you all about the future, if you like. I am, after all, a Holy Man™.
But think about it for a second. There will be stompy robots, but they will be DISSAPOINTING. So far, that's been my experience of The Future.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2013, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 12, 2013, 05:51:27 PM
Which means, logically, it is THE FUTURE.
No, the future isn't that kind. There will be no big stompy robots.
I can tell you all about the future, if you like. I am, after all, a Holy Man™.
Last time you told us about the Future, I bled from my gums for a week.
Last time I caught my own glimpse of the future, I became a Discordian.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 12, 2013, 06:00:40 PM
But think about it for a second. There will be stompy robots, but they will be DISSAPOINTING. So far, that's been my experience of The Future.
No, because there is no way giant stompy robots could be disappointing.
Instead, we will have movies about giant stompy robots (already happened), while small men and women do small things in an increasingly smaller world. And then get arrested for those small things, after which they will do other small things in a prison call center, so they can buy small things at the prison canteen. Which is also already happening.
The future is
small.
Quote from: Cainad on April 12, 2013, 06:03:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2013, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 12, 2013, 05:51:27 PM
Which means, logically, it is THE FUTURE.
No, the future isn't that kind. There will be no big stompy robots.
I can tell you all about the future, if you like. I am, after all, a Holy Man™.
Last time you told us about the Future, I bled from my gums for a week.
Last time I caught my own glimpse of the future, I became a Discordian.
Whoops. Too late.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2013, 06:03:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 12, 2013, 06:00:40 PM
But think about it for a second. There will be stompy robots, but they will be DISSAPOINTING. So far, that's been my experience of The Future.
No, because there is no way giant stompy robots could be disappointing.
Instead, we will have movies about giant stompy robots (already happened), while small men and women do small things in an increasingly smaller world. And then get arrested for those small things, after which they will do other small things in a prison call center, so they can buy small things at the prison canteen. Which is also already happening.
The future is small.
Yeah. We've been on a slick downhill road to that - with no brakes - for some time. The momentum is off the scale.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
This is probably the only solution, but I can't see it happening without catastrophic and very immediate conflict.
The Socialists,Ayn Rand Capitalists,The South, and the other South. Anarchists would die immediatley from lack of growing up.
I see 15% total population wiped out. The other South eating the South, the capitalists selling weapons to the other South so they can wipe out the socialists, and then the capitalists enslaves the other South with super real super serious poor fucker dreams.
Quote from: /b/earman on April 13, 2013, 07:28:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
This is probably the only solution, but I can't see it happening without catastrophic and very immediate conflict.
The Socialists,Ayn Rand Capitalists,The South, and the other South. Anarchists would die immediatley from lack of growing up.
I see 15% total population wiped out. The other South eating the South, the capitalists selling weapons to the other South so they can wipe out the socialists, and then the capitalists enslaves the other South with super real super serious poor fucker dreams.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2013, 07:29:39 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on April 13, 2013, 07:28:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 10, 2013, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 10, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
Solution: Break up North America into four new countries.
This is probably the only solution, but I can't see it happening without catastrophic and very immediate conflict.
The Socialists,Ayn Rand Capitalists,The South, and the other South. Anarchists would die immediatley from lack of growing up.
I see 15% total population wiped out. The other South eating the South, the capitalists selling weapons to the other South so they can wipe out the socialists, and then the capitalists enslaves the other South with super real super serious poor fucker dreams.
:lulz:
I thought that last part already happened. :lulz: