What Would Be In Your Manifesto ?

[Ideologue]

Near term: radical wealth redistribution, sexual morality based on kindness, sensible copyright regime, no meat, restrained consumption, greater automation and the end of work, human rights regime based largely on the U.S. constitution.  Long term: no religion, space colonies, recognition that human beings need to be rebuilt and, ultimately, retired, in favor of more robust, better-adapted artificial life.

Because of the nature of human beings, the long term goals are actually more plausible.

A world where science and progress aren't restrained.  A world where the population of the world is less than half a billion

These two notions are at odds.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I would greatly restrict the number of days that Paliament sat and insist that MPs have a real career/job as well as their part-time political role.

[Norgy]

I would greatly restrict the number of days that Paliament sat and insist that MPs have a real career/job as well as their part-time political role.

I can really see the press headlines. Moderate Man Calls For Sensible Politics, Offends Three.

[MadImmortalMan]

Every weekend is extended to include Friday. And flip flops are banned.

[Norgy]

I'd probably include a rant against slim fit jeans in my manifesto.

[Barrister]

I would greatly restrict the number of days that Paliament sat and insist that MPs have a real career/job as well as their part-time political role.

I have to disagree with you.  First MPs have a lot of work to do, and it really isn't feasible to expect them to do it on a part time basis.  Second by having a job on the side opens them up to allegations of having personal motivations in how they vote.  Third many jobs aren't available on a part time basis, so it would restrict who could serve as an MP.

[Grallon]

An orderly world, where everyone knows who is above them and who is beneath them.  A world where people do what they're told, and where they're told what to do for their own good.  A world where science and progress aren't restrained.  A world where the population of the world is less than half a billion, and breeding is strictly controlled.  A world where we're able to set aside large areas as parkland, where nature can take it's course.  A world where people live in cities.  A world where we treat things like religious fundamentalism and homosexuality as mental disorders, rather than badges of pride.

Tsk tsk...




G.

[Grallon]

"Social uniformity through individual diversity"

But that is still only a temporary solution to try and circumvent the flaws of human nature.

The real goal would be to eliminate those flaws through genetic engineering and nano-programming.  No more hierarchies, no more religions, rational management of resources, long term planning and execution...  Sadly creating post humans is a long way off and we'll likely destroy ourselves long before.




G.

[Ideologue]

I think people will still be around in twenty to thirty years, Grallon.

[DGuller]

I'm not going to reveal it now.  It will be released in due time. 

[Slargos]

I think people will still be around in twenty to thirty years, Grallon.

That's pretty optimistic of you. In 20-30 years time we're looking at a potential singularity event, environmental disaster, oil economy breakdown and/or nuclear war triggered by Pakistan/Iran/North Korea/Whoeverelsegetsit.

Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? 

[Norgy]

Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? 

I'm sure Sid Meier's estate will allow the continued usage of the franchise, yes.

[Slargos]

Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? 

I'm sure Sid Meier's estate will allow the continued usage of the franchise, yes.

I'm confident that it will be a much too complicated game to play with sticks, stones and dirt. 

[Ideologue]

I think people will still be around in twenty to thirty years, Grallon.

That's pretty optimistic of you. In 20-30 years time we're looking at a potential singularity event, environmental disaster, oil economy breakdown and/or nuclear war triggered by Pakistan/Iran/North Korea/Whoeverelsegetsit.

Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? 

A singularity event, by definition, only ends or unrecognizably transforms human civilization, not civliization itself.  No likely environmental disaster or peak oil scenario, nor even any plausible nuclear war, could end civilization.

On the last, I've spoken about this before, but people tend to forget that there are only two true nuclear powers remaining on Earth, and those are the United States and Great Britain.*  India and Pakistan, let alone the DPRK, have at best mere deterrence ability, not nation-ending arsenals.

*Russia could still fuck a country up, but their second-strike capability has eroded to a threadbare credibility.

[Neil]

These two notions are at odds.

Not at all.  They're not related.