How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no harm?

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

Your wall of text is hurting eyeballs all across society.

Some pain is good pain that is only showing you what is already been damaged. If it pains the eyes to read text on the screen just get those glare reducing yellow eye glasses.

 

[the_recruit]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

Some pain is good pain that is only showing you what is already been damaged. If it pains the eyes to read text on the screen just get those glare reducing yellow eye glasses.

No. You're harming society. You must be lynched. It's the only way.

 

[Born Free]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

The best way to empower and motivate people is to get them education, and ensure that they are never struggling desperately to survive. Most people want to do good, and they will if they aren't motivated by fear.

Interesting concept, so who are they that should supply the funding for anyone to get educated, and then who are those that are to ensure that they are never struggling to survive? And then who is to decide who is educated enough to receive money so that they are not struggling to survive.

Really, I have no problem with society motivating people to get education. But once they are educated, why in the world should a tax payer keep on paying an educated person so they are not struggling. I thought that once you get educated you are educated to earn a living on your own. But now you say a paid education is not enough, but now you say they should continue to be financially supported to survive. I have to ask for how long should the tax payer be required to pay for this educated person to survive? His/her whole life?

I have to ask, if a person wants to be educated and then that requires society to pay for that education, but now that society has payed to educate that person. But now you say society has to continue to pay that person without producing for society that has paid that persons education, but have to keep paying that person to survive without producing for society.

I see where you are, a typical liberal that wants to tax the rich to pay for anything and everyone that wants whatever they want, no matter the cost to anyone. I get it, I'm a person that wants tax payer payments for all my life, educated or not I'm entitled.

 

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

No. You're harming society. You must be lynched. It's the only way.

What qualifies you to make that accusation? Such an accusation must be well supported by evidence and well reasoned arguments. People do not benefit from punishment, the only way to do justice is to treat harm doers like patients like we do with the criminally insane. It is all a matter of brain chemistry and cognitive-behavioral disorder and the solution should address these causes of crime.

 

[reidster]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

An dictator can actually be a benevolent one that can be better than democracy that is governed by not always benevolent majority. I would prefer that the path to power be in a way where only the most benevolent people rise to power. We should reward good behavior by giving them more power and influence according to their good deeds and understanding of reality.
An authoritarian regime that only lets evil people rise to power is bad. A technocracy that gives the most power to those who prove to be the most expert and most benevolent is better.
i do not see how giving power to influence others to those who prove to be dedicated to the greater good and are professionals at mental health is a bad thing or justifies evil regimes. Giving power to influence the behavior of others is already being done in our society in the mental health care business.

Here's the problem: The definition of "good" varies. A socialist may promote equality. A libertarian may promote freedom.

My good, my benevolence, is when individuals are free of coercion or the force of others. My good would conflict with your good, therefore nullifying your good in my point of view. See what I'm getting it?

 

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

Interesting concept, so who are they that should supply the funding for anyone to get educated, and then who are those that are to ensure that they are never struggling to survive? And then who is to decide who is educated enough to receive money so that they are not struggling to survive.

Really, I have no problem with society motivating people to get education. But once they are educated, why in the world should a tax payer keep on paying an educated person so they are not struggling. I thought that once you get educated you are educated to earn a living on your own. But now you say a paid education is not enough, but now you say they should continue to be financially supported to survive. I have to ask for how long should the tax payer be required to pay for this educated person to survive? His/her whole life?

I have to ask, if a person wants to be educated and then that requires society to pay for that education, but now that society has payed to educate that person. But now you say society has to continue to pay that person without producing for society that has paid that persons education, but have to keep paying that person to survive without producing for society.

I see where you are, a typical liberal that wants to tax the rich to pay for anything and everyone that wants whatever they want, no matter the cost to anyone. I get it, I'm a person that wants tax payer payments for all my life, educated or not I'm entitled.

Society is what benefits most from having educated minds, so society should pay for it. Everyone benefits by having smarter people around as more ideas and innovations are produced which benefit everyone. As long as people are contributing to society more than the resources they consume in the process, then society should have no problem paying for those resources since the net gain is a win for everyone. The problem then is to figure out how to measure contributions and consumption and enforce the proper use of socially responsible consumption. People should never be finished learning. Every book should be free, and the authors should be rewarded according to the value they add to society and the increase they make in people's ability to do good.

 

[Paschendale]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

Interesting concept, so who are they that should supply the funding for anyone to get educated, and then who are those that are to ensure that they are never struggling to survive? And then who is to decide who is educated enough to receive money so that they are not struggling to survive.

Really, I have no problem with society motivating people to get education. But once they are educated, why in the world should a tax payer keep on paying an educated person so they are not struggling. I thought that once you get educated you are educated to earn a living on your own. But now you say a paid education is not enough, but now you say they should continue to be financially supported to survive. I have to ask for how long should the tax payer be required to pay for this educated person to survive? His/her whole life?

I have to ask, if a person wants to be educated and then that requires society to pay for that education, but now that society has payed to educate that person. But now you say society has to continue to pay that person without producing for society that has paid that persons education, but have to keep paying that person to survive without producing for society.

I see where you are, a typical liberal that wants to tax the rich to pay for anything and everyone that wants whatever they want, no matter the cost to anyone. I get it, I'm a person that wants tax payer payments for all my life, educated or not I'm entitled.

People who aren't struggling live better lives, can afford to take risks, can invest in things, can buy non-necessary goods and services, don't get sick or seriously injured as much, don't tend to commit crime. People who aren't struggling ARE the tax payers. That's how you become one. When you don't need to struggle to survive, you can build up savings and improve your lifestyle, and you contribute to the society around you.

The right wing needs to get over this nonsense maker/taker split. It bears no resemblance to reality, and it's hurting our country. We are all both. We make and we take. Thinking that anyone is just one and not the other is simply wrong.

 

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

Here's the problem: The definition of "good" varies. A socialist may promote equality. A libertarian may promote freedom.

My good, my benevolence, is when individuals are free of coercion or the force of others. My good would conflict with your good, therefore nullifying your good in my point of view. See what I'm getting it?

I would argue that there is greater amount of freedom to do good for the greatest number of people when everyone gives up their ability to cause harm. I promote equality of opportunity to rise to influence and power according to the dedication they have to increasing the value of society and their understanding of the world.
Like I said "I think good is relative to the ultimate goal for all life and the world. The ultimate goal should be as grand as possible, so it should be at least to colonize the galaxy with intelligent life or technology. It could also be to enable all life to realize any dream instantly and have any experience that does not harm others."
So good varies according to the ultimate goal of humanity and life which can be determined through the study of living systems that show us what the goal of life should be, to increase order and complexity, to dream, and to realize dreams of more life. The more alive the more good it is. So studying what life is and defining it is essential to defining goodness. We should be like the cells in our body and continue the patterns and goals that they have set for themselves that make us possible.

 

[reidster]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

I would argue that there is greater amount of freedom to do good for the greatest number of people when everyone gives up their ability to cause harm. I promote equality of opportunity to rise to influence and power according to the dedication they have to increasing the value of society and their understanding of the world.
Like I said "I think good is relative to the ultimate goal for all life and the world. The ultimate goal should be as grand as possible, so it should be at least to colonize the galaxy with intelligent life or technology. It could also be to enable all life to realize any dream instantly and have any experience that does not harm others."
So good varies according to the ultimate goal of humanity and life which can be determined through the study of living systems that show us what the goal of life should be, to increase order and complexity, to dream, and to realize dreams of more life. The more alive the more good it is. So studying what life is and defining it is essential to defining goodness. We should be like the cells in our body and continue the patterns and goals that they have set for themselves that make us possible.

If we no longer have the opportunity to make the right or wrong choice, we no longer have freedom. You envision a society where no one wishes to instill harm upon another. You are smart enough to realize that this is impossible and would require some sort of synthetic augmentation to come to fruition. However, you believe in having non-perfect humans control other non-perfect humans. This chosen group of non-perfect humans, are benevolent, in YOUR opinion. They may not be benevolent in mine.

What you believe in is immoral, because it always stems back to oppression and coercion, no matter how "good" or "benevolent" this oppression may be in your subjective opinion.

 

[Campbell]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

Before this nation can ever return to any state of normalcy the constant flow of the nation's wealth to the top has to stop. We no longer have a middle class and seem to be headed toward a Lord/Serf society. Maybe I'm selfish but with only a high school education my wife and I managed to educate three children, provide health insurance for them and retire in a brick home on the lake. How often does that **** happen now?

 

[MaggieD]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

We should make it impossible to do harm to society. If an action has a net loss for the value of society then it is harming society and should not be allowed to happen. Doing things that do not benefit the whole society being should not be allowed since this also harms it since if we are not growing the system then it is dying. No one should be allowed to not contribute to the growth of society. Everyone should be encouraged, motivated, rewarded and incentivized to grow society towards the most ethical and rational goals that benefit everyone in the long term existence of society. We need to get serious about the long term future survival and thriving of our society and values. We should create a fortified city that can replicate itself as the population grows at a steady and reasonable rate. The city should adjust to our changing needs like a cell in our body adjusts to its environment and goals. But the people in this city would need to be dedicated to the common good of the city and the world. In order to make sure they will not deviate from the goals of the society, we must reward good and socially beneficial behavior as soon as it happens and treat and change bad behavior and make bad behavior impossible. We can do this by installing brain implants that communicates all brain activity to a computer that is controlled by everyone who is rational and dedicated to the common good. The computer would recognize when someone is thinking about doing harm and when someone is planning to do something good. This computer would make sure everyone is thinking and feeling rationally, efficiently, and ethically. What is ethical thinking and what is not will be determined by everyone according to how well they understand the world and how to progress it and computers and technology would aid the process to eliminate human error. We can already use fmri machines to determine when someone is lying today since lying uses more imaginative areas of the brain and blood flow patterns reveal what areas of the brain are being used. Soon these devices will be hand held and wearable and can even communicate with other brain or computer systems cellularly and electronically. Brain to brain interfaces have been successful already, where one experimenter had his arm controlled and moved by another person who was just had to think about moving his hand. The future can be here sooner than later if we care about solutions to our social problems enough. Soon technology will enable us to use any person's brain resources and knowledge, skills, and wisdom will be in the cloud of minds that anyone can access if they are publicly available or for sale per use, download, upload, or access. The internet of brains will be available in the future. This would enable anyone to contribute to the government decisions according to their level of expertise. Thoughts and actions that aim to cause harm can be eliminated before they happen. There would be no mental illness and no psychopaths since we will be able to use brain implants to provide brain functions that mentally ill people lack.
In the future, no one will understand how some people, in the past, valued "privacy" or the ability to hide from others their intentions, thoughts, and activities. They will wonder why anyone would need to hide such things from others unless they wanted to do harm to society. We have valued things in the past that we consider uncivilized today. We valued the right have slaves and today those rights have been recognized to be harmful to society in the end and they have been abolished today.
The city systems would reward people who do good with more influence over the goals of the city. The most powerful people would be the ones who add the most value to society. Anyone would be able to climb the ladder of power with every action they take to increase their knowledge and understanding of the world and to do good things with their knowledge and resources. If people have to be dedicated to the well-being of the city social system and the world in order for them to gain power, no one with intentions to harm would be able to rise to power and influence.

Paragraphs are your friend.

 

[DVSentinel]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

We should make it impossible to do harm to society. If an action has a net loss for the value of society then it is harming society and should not be allowed to happen. Doing things that do not benefit the whole society being should not be allowed since this also harms it since if we are not growing the system then it is dying. No one should be allowed to not contribute to the growth of society. Everyone should be encouraged, motivated, rewarded and incentivized to grow society towards the most ethical and rational goals that benefit everyone in the long term existence of society. We need to get serious about the long term future survival and thriving of our society and values. We should create a fortified city that can replicate itself as the population grows at a steady and reasonable rate. The city should adjust to our changing needs like a cell in our body adjusts to its environment and goals. But the people in this city would need to be dedicated to the common good of the city and the world. In order to make sure they will not deviate from the goals of the society, we must reward good and socially beneficial behavior as soon as it happens and treat and change bad behavior and make bad behavior impossible. We can do this by installing brain implants that communicates all brain activity to a computer that is controlled by everyone who is rational and dedicated to the common good. The computer would recognize when someone is thinking about doing harm and when someone is planning to do something good. This computer would make sure everyone is thinking and feeling rationally, efficiently, and ethically. What is ethical thinking and what is not will be determined by everyone according to how well they understand the world and how to progress it and computers and technology would aid the process to eliminate human error. We can already use fmri machines to determine when someone is lying today since lying uses more imaginative areas of the brain and blood flow patterns reveal what areas of the brain are being used. Soon these devices will be hand held and wearable and can even communicate with other brain or computer systems cellularly and electronically. Brain to brain interfaces have been successful already, where one experimenter had his arm controlled and moved by another person who was just had to think about moving his hand. The future can be here sooner than later if we care about solutions to our social problems enough. Soon technology will enable us to use any person's brain resources and knowledge, skills, and wisdom will be in the cloud of minds that anyone can access if they are publicly available or for sale per use, download, upload, or access. The internet of brains will be available in the future. This would enable anyone to contribute to the government decisions according to their level of expertise. Thoughts and actions that aim to cause harm can be eliminated before they happen. There would be no mental illness and no psychopaths since we will be able to use brain implants to provide brain functions that mentally ill people lack.
In the future, no one will understand how some people, in the past, valued "privacy" or the ability to hide from others their intentions, thoughts, and activities. They will wonder why anyone would need to hide such things from others unless they wanted to do harm to society. We have valued things in the past that we consider uncivilized today. We valued the right have slaves and today those rights have been recognized to be harmful to society in the end and they have been abolished today.
The city systems would reward people who do good with more influence over the goals of the city. The most powerful people would be the ones who add the most value to society. Anyone would be able to climb the ladder of power with every action they take to increase their knowledge and understanding of the world and to do good things with their knowledge and resources. If people have to be dedicated to the well-being of the city social system and the world in order for them to gain power, no one with intentions to harm would be able to rise to power and influence.

A mind controlled society-centric race. Socialism using mind control.

No thanks, I'll pass.

 

[Cyrylek]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

We should make it impossible to do harm to society. If an action has a net loss for the value of society...

"Harm to society" is a meaningless phrase. Society is a collection of connected real people. You do harm only if you actually do it to individual people. "The value of society" is likewise meaningless, except as assertion of the values of those who happen to be in charge over the values and choices of those who cannot defend them.

Subsequent totalitarian daydreaming follows naturally.

 

[chromium]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

Some people do not have the proper brain chemistry to make good decisions for themselves so it is justified for more reasonable professionals to decide what is best for them against their unhealthy will. Why should we tempt or people with the opportunity to cause harm to others or themselves? That makes no sense. We can still have the free healthy will to do good but we should never have the free will or opportunity to cause harm. Can you justify giving people the opportunity to cause harm?

Yes, i can. It sounds too thought police to me. Probably most people have those thoughts now and then, yet very few act on them. The few who are shoved into hospitals make explicit threats.

I think good is relative to the ultimate goal for all life and the world. The ultimate goal should be as grand as possible, so it should be at least to colonize the galaxy with intelligent life or technology. It could also be to enable all life to realize any dream instantly and have any experience that does not harm others.

Well you have quite a vision...I hate to be a downer but why has no alien life left proof of visiting earth in the past 2 billion years? The universe is just too vast. Radiation would kill any carbon life form traveling at a speed that could reach even the dozen or so planets we know of that might sustain life, before the traveler dies off from old age. I know in every sci fi movie they just go into suspended animation while the ship steers itself, not crashing into anything, but then ask why we haven't been colonized ourselves.

People are all the time wanting to limit the rights of others despite those behaviors are not harmful in any way. By "colonize the galaxy" i take it you mean killing off all other intelligent life that gets in our way. Any planet already worth inhabiting probably has such life or it will evolve to in the near future.

But I am suggesting that we give everyone the tools they need to decide what is best and most good for the future of the universe collectively as one social being. Neurons in the brain are an example to show that we already have a network of individual cells that influence each other and make decisions collectively with each cell being given some fair consideration in the overall decision process. I am practicing bio-mimicry and applying the insights from biology to social systems. I am taking the next step in our evolution into a society being of networked systems and minds just like the neurons already are. Why not follow the best methods already proven by billions of years of natural selection? So I justify the mind network and thought guidance system by appealing to biology which knows how to make a living system better than we do. Did I satisfy your questions and concerns?

A hive mind might be more efficient, but what's really going on that makes it so is a loss of autonomy and individuality. I don't know that i find automatic, collective decision making a desirable outcome, whatever evolution's next step.

 

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

Yes, i can. It sounds too thought police to me. Probably most people have those thoughts now and then, yet very few act on them. The few who are shoved into hospitals make explicit threats.

Mental health professionals know that certain kinds of thought often enough lead to certain kinds of actions so by displaying certain kinds of behavior, like saying a lot of negative things about yourself and showing that you do not value your life, tend to result in certain dangerous behaviors, like hurting yourself in some way or ending your life. A person does not need to say that they are going to kill themselves or someone else in order for them to be detained, if they display behaviors that correlate with harmful behavior then the police and mental health professionals are justified in detaining the person. So not only explicit threats justify detention, but implied threats as well justify detention. I recall a person who said to her self out loud that she wish she was never born or something like that, and a police officer detained her and brought her to a mental hospital for evaluation and she was forced to take meds. This detention was best to make sure she would not harm herself.

Having violent thoughts is a sign of an imbalanced brain chemistry and should be treated to balance the chemistry.

Can you provide reasons to support your answer that you can justify giving people the opportunity to cause harm?

why has no alien life left proof of visiting earth in the past 2 billion years?

There is a theory that we may be aliens from another planet, since asteroids with microscopic and spore like life can seed a planet with life. Also aliens could be aware of us but do not want to disturb our evolution. Any life that has evolved through billions of years of natural selection is worth knowing about. There are plenty of reason why aliens would not like to influence us. Beings from other older galaxies should have inter-dimensional technology that would enable them to observe everything without disturbing it.

People are all the time wanting to limit the rights of others despite those behaviors are not harmful in any way.

Limiting people's freedom, rights, and ability to do good things for society is always wrong.

By "colonize the galaxy" i take it you mean killing off all other intelligent life that gets in our way.

I value intelligent life and what it has to offer, I would not suggest we destroy anything that has value to us. I would suggest we add value to all intelligent life and integrate with it. We should develop other life and exchange genetic codes, knowledge, and other resources.

A hive mind might be more efficient, but what's really going on that makes it so is a loss of autonomy and individuality. I don't know that i find automatic, collective decision making a desirable outcome, whatever evolution's next step.

Would you rather have your neurons be at war and fight for control over your body? I would argue the opposite, that increased networking with other minds allows for greater ability to individuate and specialize their forms and functions as each cell in the brain has its own form, specialization, and function depending on its location. Neurons may disagree with each other sometimes, but the more specialized and connected they are the smarter you are, just the same with the hive mind, the more connected and special each individual is the better the social mind works.

 

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

A mind controlled society-centric race. Socialism using mind control.

No thanks, I'll pass.

Why would you not want to reap the benefits of being part of something greater than your self?
What is wrong with having social experts guide people's thoughts and moods? We already do it with the those we determine are mentally ill. I am merely expanding upon the definition of the mentally ill to include those who wish to do harm, as that is not a healthy mind to want to harm others.

 

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

If we no longer have the opportunity to make the right or wrong choice, we no longer have freedom. You envision a society where no one wishes to instill harm upon another. You are smart enough to realize that this is impossible and would require some sort of synthetic augmentation to come to fruition. However, you believe in having non-perfect humans control other non-perfect humans. This chosen group of non-perfect humans, are benevolent, in YOUR opinion. They may not be benevolent in mine.

What you believe in is immoral, because it always stems back to oppression and coercion, no matter how "good" or "benevolent" this oppression may be in your subjective opinion.

If we must give people the opportunity to cause harm to society in order for there to be freedom then freedom is not good for a greater society. I think freedom to do what ever you want that benefits society is good but how would you justify giving people the opportunity to cause harm to society when this is unnecessary?

I think that with the proper arrangements that it is possible to eliminate the desire and ability to cause harm to society.

People are closer to perfection when the proper social structures are in place to allow people to benefit most from doing what is right. I do not believe in having just anyone lead society. Many requirements would need to be met for them to be the greatest leaders. Everyone should earn their voting and social decision power according to their proven devotion to social well-being, their understanding of the world, and their ability to solve social problems rationally. In this case only reason along with world social systems understanding for the purpose of social well-being would lead society and not so much the flawed people. The architect may have his personal flaws but, with care and a dedicated mind, his masterpiece can withstand the test of time and natural selection for systems. Just because a man is flawed his work can do many things flawlessly such as a computer solving complex problems no human can solve. I believe in the power of fruits of dedicated labor to solve many social problems. A more perfect society is always with in our reach.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

If we must give people the opportunity to cause harm to society in order for there to be freedom then freedom is not good for a greater society.

And if people's freedom is eradicated, they become slaves of whoever is responsible for ensuring the eradication of the freedom, and that is harmful to society. You have yourself a conundrum.

I think that with the proper arrangements that it is possible to eliminate the desire and ability to cause harm to society.

You're suggesting doing harm to society to prevent people from harming society.

People are closer to perfection when the proper social structures are in place to allow people to benefit most from doing what is right. I do not believe in having just anyone lead society. Many requirements would need to be met for them to be the greatest leaders. Everyone should earn their voting and social decision power according to their proven devotion to social well-being, their understanding of the world, and their ability to solve social problems rationally. In this case only reason along with world social systems understanding for the purpose of social well-being would lead society and not so much the flawed people. The architect may have his personal flaws but, with care and a dedicated mind, his masterpiece can withstand the test of time and natural selection for systems. Just because a man is flawed his work can do many things flawlessly such as a computer solving complex problems no human can solve. I believe in the power of fruits of dedicated labor to solve many social problems. A more perfect society is always with in our reach.

I think you've done enough free associating for now. Your judgments about what is right and wrong are presented as though you are the architect of utopia. The two biggest problems with that are 1) you're not the architect and 2) utopia is not achievable.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

We should make it impossible to do harm to society. If an action has a net loss for the value of society then it is harming society and should not be allowed to happen. Doing things that do not benefit the whole society being should not be allowed since this also harms it since if we are not growing the system then it is dying. No one should be allowed to not contribute to the growth of society. Everyone should be encouraged, motivated, rewarded and incentivized to grow society towards the most ethical and rational goals that benefit everyone in the long term existence of society. We need to get serious about the long term future survival and thriving of our society and values. We should create a fortified city that can replicate itself as the population grows at a steady and reasonable rate. The city should adjust to our changing needs like a cell in our body adjusts to its environment and goals. But the people in this city would need to be dedicated to the common good of the city and the world. In order to make sure they will not deviate from the goals of the society, we must reward good and socially beneficial behavior as soon as it happens and treat and change bad behavior and make bad behavior impossible. We can do this by installing brain implants that communicates all brain activity to a computer that is controlled by everyone who is rational and dedicated to the common good. The computer would recognize when someone is thinking about doing harm and when someone is planning to do something good. This computer would make sure everyone is thinking and feeling rationally, efficiently, and ethically. What is ethical thinking and what is not will be determined by everyone according to how well they understand the world and how to progress it and computers and technology would aid the process to eliminate human error. We can already use fmri machines to determine when someone is lying today since lying uses more imaginative areas of the brain and blood flow patterns reveal what areas of the brain are being used. Soon these devices will be hand held and wearable and can even communicate with other brain or computer systems cellularly and electronically. Brain to brain interfaces have been successful already, where one experimenter had his arm controlled and moved by another person who was just had to think about moving his hand. The future can be here sooner than later if we care about solutions to our social problems enough. Soon technology will enable us to use any person's brain resources and knowledge, skills, and wisdom will be in the cloud of minds that anyone can access if they are publicly available or for sale per use, download, upload, or access. The internet of brains will be available in the future. This would enable anyone to contribute to the government decisions according to their level of expertise. Thoughts and actions that aim to cause harm can be eliminated before they happen. There would be no mental illness and no psychopaths since we will be able to use brain implants to provide brain functions that mentally ill people lack.
In the future, no one will understand how some people, in the past, valued "privacy" or the ability to hide from others their intentions, thoughts, and activities. They will wonder why anyone would need to hide such things from others unless they wanted to do harm to society. We have valued things in the past that we consider uncivilized today. We valued the right have slaves and today those rights have been recognized to be harmful to society in the end and they have been abolished today.
The city systems would reward people who do good with more influence over the goals of the city. The most powerful people would be the ones who add the most value to society. Anyone would be able to climb the ladder of power with every action they take to increase their knowledge and understanding of the world and to do good things with their knowledge and resources. If people have to be dedicated to the well-being of the city social system and the world in order for them to gain power, no one with intentions to harm would be able to rise to power and influence.

Envisioneer some paragraphs.

 

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

And if people's freedom is eradicated, they become slaves of whoever is responsible for ensuring the eradication of the freedom, and that is harmful to society. You have yourself a conundrum.

The freedom to cause harm must be sacrificed if we are to enjoy the greater freedoms to add value to society. The people who eliminate the opportunities, desires and the ability to cause harm will be everyone who is dedicated to creating a higher social well-being which will be everyone in time. We are always slaves of something if you want to use that word, I mean we are all owned by one thing or another and we work for those things and their goals. We may be slaves but at least our owner is a greater society rather than our current slavery to our base desires that are created by corporations and those things with the most influence on us. Every desire has a cause which does not originate from you because you yourself are caused by things other than your self.

You're suggesting doing harm to society to prevent people from harming society.

How does my suggestion cause more harm than good for society if it causes any harm at all? It is impossible to remove an object like a fish hook from the body without causing more harm but in the you do more good than harm if done right.
Also, how do you justify allowing people to cause harm to society when this could easily be avoided?

I think you've done enough free associating for now. Your judgments about what is right and wrong are presented as though you are the architect of utopia. The two biggest problems with that are 1) you're not the architect and 2) utopia is not achievable.

Everyone who thinks about and makes plans to figure out how to solve social problems is a designer of a better society. I never would call what I suggest Utopia, utopia is not achievable by definition so there is no reason for using such a term. There will always be room for improvement in any design for society.
Are you satisfied with the status quo?
Do you believe that a better society is possible?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

The freedom to cause harm must be sacrificed

You're already off track. There is no freedom to cause harm. There is a right not to be harmed, deprived of liberty, property or life, except by due process. Our potential to cause harm is restricted by other individuals' rights not to be harmed. If you don't get this most basic part right, everything following it will be amiss.

We are always slaves of something if you want to use that word, I mean we are all owned by one thing or another and we work for those things and their goals.

This generally is not true, and should not ever be true.

We may be slaves but at least our owner is a greater society rather than our current slavery to our base desires that are created by corporations and those things with the most influence on us. Every desire has a cause which does not originate from you because you yourself are caused by things other than your self.

You're off the rails.

Are you satisfied with the status quo?
Do you believe that a better society is possible?

First question, no. Second question, not by defining things in terms of a nebulous and subjective "good for society, harmful to society" dichotomy. That is a bad organizing principle. Harm is prevented by balancing one individual's interests and rights against another individual's interests and rights. One person's liberty cannot deprive another person's property, your rights end where another's begins, and so forth. Beyond that, there are valid reasons for broader regulations, but only for the purpose of effectively regulating (making normal/regular) the trade in the economy, enforcing good faith contracting, responding efficiently to criminal behaviors, and so forth.

 

[Envisioneer]

Re: How should we empower and motivate everyone to serve the public good and do no ha

You're already off track. There is no freedom to cause harm. There is a right not to be harmed, deprived of liberty, property or life, except by due process. Our potential to cause harm is restricted by other individuals' rights not to be harmed. If you don't get this most basic part right, everything following it will be amiss.

You unfairly quoted my statement with out providing the necessary qualifiers and contextual information that would be needed to properly understand my view.
I do not think that we are as protected from people who cause us harm as we should be. You neglect to address the rights of the social orgnanism, which has a right to thrive just as much as any individual has a right to survive. But I do not like the usage of the term "rights", because it implies that everyone deserves certain things just because they are human, where as something that is not human does not have the same rights as humans do. I think all the universe including life forms deserve to be treated fairly and according to their value to the universe or society. From this reasoning it follows that some things have greater priority over other things that are of lesser value to society or the universal being. Thinking about the value of things in terms of its relation and value to the greater whole is the best way to evaluate and understand things in a more holistic way. The greater the size, the greater the aims and goals, and the greater order and design of things then the greater the value is and the more priority it deserves over less great things.

This generally is not true, and should not ever be true.
You're off the rails.

Do you care to provide sufficient support and evidence to justify these claims? Or are these baseless claims that have no value?

Second question, not by defining things in terms of a nebulous and subjective "good for society, harmful to society" dichotomy. That is a bad organizing principle.

Organizing things in terms of their positive and negative effects on everything else is a great organizing principle for a better world for everyone. Also, what is good for society or not can be determined in a definite and objective way. We can determine how every action effects the well-being of everyone else if we devoted enough time and resources to creating a system to do that and we should create such a system.

Harm is prevented by balancing one individual's interests and rights against another individual's interests and rights. One person's liberty cannot deprive another person's property, your rights end where another's begins, and so forth. Beyond that, there are valid reasons for broader regulations, but only for the purpose of effectively regulating (making normal/regular) the trade in the economy, enforcing good faith contracting, responding efficiently to criminal behaviors, and so forth.

These regulating systems are for the benefit of society, even though they inhibit some people's ability to become more powerful in unfair ways. My point is that what is best for the individual is for every individual to agree to serve the greater well-being of society and everyone in it fairly and agree to be limited in their ability to cause harm to others intentionally and not so intentionally. We must all devote ourselves to something greater than ourselves that unites all our efforts and values if we are to continue to exist as a living society.