[ExI] Making [100 million] people smarter on the cheap.

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at comcast.net
Sun Dec 7 20:34:42 UTC 2008


Yes, good point.  Where I think some kind of easy reputable polling 
system would work is when such a gangster wants something other than 
what the people want.

For example, when Russia invaded Georgia, evernyone knew what the 
russion leaders wanted, everyone knew what the Georgian leaders wanted, 
and everyone knew what George Bush wanted.  But did anyone even care 
what the Georgian people wanted?

Nobody should care what any thug leaders want, they should know what the 
people want.  And if there was an easy reputable efficient way to know 
that, and some thug leader was working against that, I'd bet the people 
under such thugs, with the support of the rest of the world, would kick 
that thug out very fast right?

The important key is how do you do easy, efficient, reliable, reputable, 
concise, and quantitative information from large groups of people.  If 
you can do that, then sudenly all world thugs would be completely neutered.

But of course, lots of people in these countries don't even have 
internet access.  So obviosly still lots of work to do - but progress is 
being made.

Brent Allsop

BillK wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Brent Allsop wrote:
>> In addition, as with any such world wide multi country efforts, there is
>> going to be different POV on what is most important to do next, where, the
>> reasons for such, and so on.  http://canonizer.com would seek to concisely
>> state the diversity of beliefs about such plans and needs, and concisely
>> measure the consensus for all such thinking - enabling much more ability to
>> discover where there is agreement on any actionable items, and precisely
>> what is required to achieve all of them, in highest priority order,
>> according to the largest consensus.   All this instead of having to
>> endlessly argue over any disagreements in priority or reasons or initial
>> directions, debating who has authority for what, and so on - as mostly
>> disables and prevents so many people from getting involved in any such
>> efforts today.
> I think the problem in using the canonizer in such multi-national
> situations is differing objectives. Seeking knowledge and common
> ground is not the main objective. In chaotic warzone type countries,
> blatant 'What's in it for me?' is the bosses reaction.  The people at
> the top in these countries are more like brutal gangsters than the
> more civilized white-collar corruption that we have in the west. But
> nobody is going to put into the canonizer "I don't agree with that POV
> until I get a million USD in my Swiss bank account'. It might be of
> use in more abstract philosophical argumentation though.
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list