The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: December 2016
Difference Between Empiricism and Rationalism
Posted: December 12, 2016 at 7:54 pm
Empiricism vs Rationalism
Empiricism and rationalism are two schools of thoughts in philosophy that are characterized by different views, and hence, they should be understood regarding the differences between them. First let us define these two thoughts. Empiricism is an epistemological standpoint that states that experience and observation should be the means of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, Rationalism is a philosophical standpoint that believes that opinions and actions should be based on reason rather than on religious beliefs or emotions. The main difference between the two philosophical standpoints is as follows. While rationalism believes that pure reason is sufficient for the production of knowledge, empiricism believes that it is not so. According to empiricism, it should be created through observation and experience. Through this article let us examine the differences between the two philosophical thoughts while gaining a comprehensive understanding of each standpoint.
Empiricism is an epistemological standpoint that states that experience and observation should be the means of gaining knowledge. An empiricist would say that one cannot have the knowledge about God by reason. Empiricism believes that all kinds of knowledge related to existence can be derived only from experience. There is no place for the pure reason to get the knowledge about the world. In short, it can be said that empiricism is a mere negation of rationalism.
Empiricism teaches that we should not try to know substantive truths about God and the soul from reason. Instead, an empiricist would recommend two projects, namely, constructive and critical. Constructive project centers on commentaries of religious texts. Critical projects aim at the elimination of what is said to have been known by the metaphysicians. In fact, the elimination process is based on experience. Thus, it can be said that empiricism relies more on experience than pure reason.
David Hume was an empiricist
Rationalism is a philosophical standpoint that believes that opinions and actions should be based on reason rather than on religious beliefs or emotions. The rationalist would say that one can get the knowledge of God by mere reason. In other words, pure reason would suffice for one to have a thorough understanding of the Almighty.
Even when it comes to their acceptance of the sources of knowledge, these two standpoints are different from one another. Rationalism believes in intuition, whereas empiricism does not believe in intuition. It is important to know that we can be rationalists as far as the subject of mathematics is concerned, but can be empiricist as far as the other physical sciences are concerned. Intuition and deduction may hold good for mathematics, but they may not hold good for other physical sciences. These are the subtle differences between empiricism and rationalism.
Plato believed in rational insight
Empiricism is an epistemological standpoint that states that experience and observation should be the means of gaining knowledge.
Rationalism is a philosophical standpoint that believes that opinions and actions should be based on reason rather than on religious beliefs or emotions.
An empiricist would say that one cannot have the knowledge about God by reason. Empiricism believes that all kinds of knowledge related to existence can be derived only from experience.
The rationalist would say that one can get the knowledge of God by mere reason.
Empiricism is a mere negation of rationalism.
Empiricism teaches that we should not try to know substantive truths about God and the soul from reason.
An empiricist would recommend two projects, namely, constructive and critical.
Rationalism would ask to follow pure reason.
Empiricism does not believe in intuition.
Rationalism believes in intuition.
Images Courtesy:David Humeand Plato via Wikicommons (Public Domain)
Continue reading here:
Posted in Rationalism
Comments Off on Difference Between Empiricism and Rationalism
futurism – unknown.nu
Posted: at 7:43 pm
No architecture has existed since 1700. A moronic mixture of the most various stylistic elements used to mask the skeletons of modern houses is called modern architecture. The new beauty of cement and iron are profaned by the superimposition of motley decorative incrustations that cannot be justified either by constructive necessity or by our (modern) taste, and whose origins are in Egyptian, Indian or Byzantine antiquity and in that idiotic flowering of stupidity and impotence that took the name of neoclassicism.
These architectonic prostitutions are welcomed in Italy, and rapacious alien ineptitude is passed off as talented invention and as extremely up-to-date architecture. Young Italian architects (those who borrow originality from clandestine and compulsive devouring of art journals) flaunt their talents in the new quarters of our towns, where a hilarious salad of little ogival columns, seventeenth-century foliation, Gothic pointed arches, Egyptian pilasters, rococo scrolls, fifteenth-century cherubs, swollen caryatids, take the place of style in all seriousness, and presumptuously put on monumental airs. The kaleidoscopic appearance and reappearance of forms, the multiplying of machinery, the daily increasing needs imposed by the speed of communications, by the concentration of population, by hygiene, and by a hundred other phenomena of modern life, never cause these self-styled renovators of architecture a moment's perplexity or hesitation. They persevere obstinately with the rules of Vitruvius, Vignola and Sansovino plus gleanings from any published scrap of information on German architecture that happens to be at hand. Using these, they continue to stamp the image of imbecility on our cities, our cities which should be the immediate and faithful projection of ourselves.
And so this expressive and synthetic art has become in their hands a vacuous stylistic exercise, a jumble of ill-mixed formulae to disguise a run-of-the-mill traditionalist box of bricks and stone as a modern building. As if we who are accumulators and generators of movement, with all our added mechanical limbs, with all the noise and speed of our life, could live in streets built for the needs of men four, five or six centuries ago.
This is the supreme imbecility of modern architecture, perpetuated by the venal complicity of the academies, the internment camps of the intelligentsia, where the young are forced into the onanistic recopying of classical models instead of throwing their minds open in the search for new frontiers and in the solution of the new and pressing problem: the Futurist house and city. The house and the city that are ours both spiritually and materially, in which our tumult can rage without seeming a grotesque anachronism.
The problem posed in Futurist architecture is not one of linear rearrangement. It is not a question of finding new moldings and frames for windows and doors, of replacing columns, pilasters and corbels with caryatids, flies and frogs. Neither has it anything to do with leaving a faade in bare brick, or plastering it, or facing it with stone or in determining formal differences between the new building and the old one. It is a question of tending the healthy growth of the Futurist house, of constructing it with all the resources of technology and science, satisfying magisterially all the demands of our habits and our spirit, trampling down all that is grotesque and antithetical (tradition, style, aesthetics, proportion), determining new forms, new lines, a new harmony of profiles and volumes, an architecture whose reason for existence can be found solely in the unique conditions of modern life, and in its correspondence with the aesthetic values of our sensibilities. This architecture cannot be subjected to any law of historical continuity. It must be new, just as our state of mind is new.
The art of construction has been able to evolve with time, and to pass from one style to another, while maintaining unaltered the general characteristics of architecture, because in the course of history changes of fashion are frequent and are determined by the alternations of religious conviction and political disposition. But profound changes in the state of the environment are extremely rare, changes that unhinge and renew, such as the discovery of natural laws, the perfecting of mechanical means, the rational and scientific use of material. In modern life the process of stylistic development in architecture has been brought to a halt. Architecture now makes a break with tradition. It must perforce make a fresh start.
Calculations based on the resistance of materials, on the use of reinforced concrete and steel, exclude "architecture" in the classical and traditional sense. Modern constructional materials and scientific concepts are absolutely incompatible with the disciplines of historical styles, and are the principal cause of the grotesque appearance of "fashionable" buildings in which attempts are made to employ the lightness, the superb grace of the steel beam, the delicacy of reinforced concrete, in order to obtain the heavy curve of the arch and the bulkiness of marble.
The utter antithesis between the modern world and the old is determined by all those things that formerly did not exist. Our lives have been enriched by elements the possibility of whose existence the ancients did not even suspect. Men have identified material contingencies, and revealed spiritual attitudes, whose repercussions are felt in a thousand ways. Principal among these is the formation of a new ideal of beauty that is still obscure and embryonic, but whose fascination is already felt even by the masses. We have lost our predilection for the monumental, the heavy, the static, and we have enriched our sensibility with a taste for the light, the practical, the ephemeral and the swift. We no longer feel ourselves to be the men of the cathedrals, the palaces and the podiums. We are the men of the great hotels, the railway stations, the immense streets, colossal ports, covered markets, luminous arcades, straight roads and beneficial demolitions.
We must invent and rebuild the Futurist city like an immense and tumultuous shipyard, agile, mobile and dynamic in every detail; and the Futurist house must be like a gigantic machine. The lifts must no longer be hidden away like tapeworms in the niches of stairwells; the stairwells themselves, rendered useless, must be abolished, and the lifts must scale the lengths of the faades like serpents of steel and glass. The house of concrete, glass and steel, stripped of paintings and sculpture, rich only in the innate beauty of its lines and relief, extraordinarily "ugly" in its mechanical simplicity, higher and wider according to need rather than the specifications of municipal laws. It must soar up on the brink of a tumultuous abyss: the street will no longer lie like a doormat at ground level, but will plunge many stories down into the earth, embracing the metropolitan traffic, and will be linked up for necessary interconnections by metal gangways and swift-moving pavements.
The decorative must be abolished. The problem of Futurist architecture must be resolved, not by continuing to pilfer from Chinese, Persian or Japanese photographs or fooling around with the rules of Vitruvius, but through flashes of genius and through scientific and technical expertise. Everything must be revolutionized. Roofs and underground spaces must be used; the importance of the faade must be diminished; issues of taste must be transplanted from the field of fussy moldings, finicky capitals and flimsy doorways to the broader concerns of bold groupings and masses, and large-scale disposition of planes. Let us make an end of monumental, funereal and commemorative architecture. Let us overturn monuments, pavements, arcades and flights of steps; let us sink the streets and squares; let us raise the level of the city.
I COMBAT AND DESPISE:
AND PROCLAIM:
See original here:
futurism - unknown.nu
Posted in Futurism
Comments Off on futurism – unknown.nu
Future – Wikipedia
Posted: at 7:43 pm
The future is what will happen in the time after the present. Its arrival is considered inevitable due to the existence of time and the laws of physics. Due to the apparent nature of reality and the unavoidability of the future, everything that currently exists and will exist can be categorized as either permanent, meaning that it will exist forever, or temporary, meaning that it will end. The future and the concept of eternity have been major subjects of philosophy, religion, and science, and defining them non-controversially has consistently eluded the greatest of minds.[1] In the Occidental view, which uses a linear conception of time, the future is the portion of the projected time line that is anticipated to occur.[2] In special relativity, the future is considered absolute future, or the future light cone.[3]
In the philosophy of time, presentism is the belief that only the present exists and the future and the past are unreal. Religions consider the future when they address issues such as karma, life after death, and eschatologies that study what the end of time and the end of the world will be. Religious figures such as prophets and diviners have claimed to see into the future. Organized efforts to predict or forecast the future may have derived from observations by early man of heavenly objects.
Future studies, or futurology, is the science, art and practice of postulating possible futures. Modern practitioners stress the importance of alternative and plural futures, rather than one monolithic future, and the limitations of prediction and probability, versus the creation of possible and preferable futures.
The concept of the future has been explored extensively in cultural production, including art movements and genres devoted entirely to its elucidation, such as the 20th century movement futurism.
Forecasting is the process of estimating outcomes in uncontrolled situations. Forecasting is applied in many areas, such as weather forecasting, earthquake prediction, transport planning, and labour market planning. Due to the element of the unknown, risk and uncertainty are central to forecasting.
Statistically based forecasting employs time series with cross-sectional or longitudinal data. Econometric forecasting methods use the assumption that it is possible to identify the underlying factors that might influence the variable that is being forecast. If the causes are understood, projections of the influencing variables can be made and used in the forecast. Judgmental forecasting methods incorporate intuitive judgments, opinions and probability estimates, as in the case of the Delphi method, scenario building, and simulations.
Prediction is similar to forecasting but is used more generally, for instance to also include baseless claims on the future. Organized efforts to predict the future began with practices like astrology, haruspicy, and augury. These are all considered to be pseudoscience today, evolving from the human desire to know the future in advance.
Modern efforts such as future studies attempt to predict technological and societal trends, while more ancient practices, such as weather forecasting, have benefited from scientific and causal modelling. Despite the development of cognitive instruments for the comprehension of future, the stochastic and chaotic nature of many natural and social processes has made precise forecasting of the future elusive.
Future studies or futurology is the science, art and practice of postulating possible, probable, and preferable futures and the worldviews and myths that underlie them. Futures studies seeks to understand what is likely to continue, what is likely to change, and what is novel. Part of the discipline thus seeks a systematic and pattern-based understanding of past and present, and to determine the likelihood of future events and trends. A key part of this process is understanding the potential future impact of decisions made by individuals, organisations and governments. Leaders use results of such work to assist in decision-making.
Futures is an interdisciplinary field, studying yesterday's and today's changes, and aggregating and analyzing both lay and professional strategies, and opinions with respect to tomorrow. It includes analyzing the sources, patterns, and causes of change and stability in the attempt to develop foresight and to map possible futures. Modern practitioners stress the importance of alternative and plural futures, rather than one monolithic future, and the limitations of prediction and probability, versus the creation of possible and preferable futures.
Three factors usually distinguish futures studies from the research conducted by other disciplines (although all disciplines overlap, to differing degrees). First, futures studies often examines not only possible but also probable, preferable, and "wild card" futures. Second, futures studies typically attempts to gain a holistic or systemic view based on insights from a range of different disciplines. Third, futures studies challenges and unpacks the assumptions behind dominant and contending views of the future. The future thus is not empty but fraught with hidden assumptions.
Futures studies does not generally include the work of economists who forecast movements of interest rates over the next business cycle, or of managers or investors with short-term time horizons. Most strategic planning, which develops operational plans for preferred futures with time horizons of one to three years, is also not considered futures. But plans and strategies with longer time horizons that specifically attempt to anticipate and be robust to possible future events, are part of a major subdiscipline of futures studies called strategic foresight.
The futures field also excludes those who make future predictions through professed supernatural means. At the same time, it does seek to understand the models such groups use and the interpretations they give to these models.
In physics, time is a fourth dimension. Physicists argue that space-time can be understood as a sort of stretchy fabric that bends due to forces such as gravity. In classical physics the future is just a half of the timeline, which is the same for all observers. In special relativity the flow of time is relative to the observer's frame of reference. The faster an observer is traveling away from a reference object, the slower that object seems to move through time. Hence, future is not an objective notion anymore. A more significant notion is absolute future or the future light cone. While a person can move backwards or forwards in the three spatial dimensions, many physicists argue you are only able to move forward in time.[4]
One of the outcomes of Special Relativity Theory is that a person can travel into the future (but never come back) by traveling at very high speeds. While this effect is negligible under ordinary conditions, space travel at very high speeds can change the flow of time considerably. As depicted in many science fiction stories and movies (e.g. Dj Vu), a person traveling for even a short time at near light speed will return to an Earth that is many years in the future.
Some physicists claim that by using a wormhole to connect two regions of space-time a person could theoretically travel in time. Physicist Michio Kaku points out that to power this hypothetical time machine and "punch a hole into the fabric of space-time", it would require the energy of a star. Another theory is that a person could travel in time with cosmic strings.
"The trouble with the future is that it's so much less knowable than the past."
In the philosophy of time, presentism is the belief that only the present exists, and the future and past are unreal. Past and future "entities" are construed as logical constructions or fictions. The opposite of presentism is 'eternalism', which is the belief that things in the past and things yet to come exist eternally. Another view (not held by many philosophers) is sometimes called the 'growing block' theory of timewhich postulates that the past and present exist, but the future does not.[6]
Presentism is compatible with Galilean relativity, in which time is independent of space, but is probably incompatible with Lorentzian/Einsteinian relativity in conjunction with certain other philosophical theses that many find uncontroversial. Saint Augustine proposed that the present is a knife edge between the past and the future and could not contain any extended period of time.
Contrary to Saint Augustine, some philosophers propose that conscious experience is extended in time. For instance, William James said that time is "...the short duration of which we are immediately and incessantly sensible."[citation needed] Augustine proposed that God is outside of time and present for all times, in eternity. Other early philosophers who were presentists include the Buddhists (in the tradition of Indian Buddhism). A leading scholar from the modern era on Buddhist philosophy is Stcherbatsky, who has written extensively on Buddhist presentism:
While ethologists consider animal behavior largely based on fixed action patterns or other learned traits in an animal's past[citation needed], human behavior is known to encompass anticipation of the future. Anticipatory behavior can be the result of a psychological outlook toward the future, for examples optimism, pessimism, and hope.
Optimism is an outlook on life such that one maintains a view of the world as a positive place. People would say that optimism is seeing the glass "half full" of water as opposed to half empty. It is the philosophical opposite of pessimism. Optimists generally believe that people and events are inherently good, so that most situations work out in the end for the best. Hope is a belief in a positive outcome related to events and circumstances in one's life. Hope implies a certain amount of despair, wanting, wishing, suffering or perseverance i.e., believing that a better or positive outcome is possible even when there is some evidence to the contrary. "Hopefulness" is somewhat different from optimism in that hope is an emotional state, whereas optimism is a conclusion reached through a deliberate thought pattern that leads to a positive attitude.
Pessimism as stated before is the opposite of optimism. It is the tendency to see, anticipate, or emphasize only bad or undesirable outcomes, results, or problems. The word originates in Latin from Pessimus meaning worst and Malus meaning bad.
Religions consider the future when they address issues such as karma, life after death, and eschatologies that study what the end of time and the end of the world will be. In religion, major prophets are said to have the power to change the future. Common religious figures have claimed to see into the future, such as minor prophets and diviners. The term "afterlife" refers to the continuation of existence of the soul, spirit or mind of a human (or animal) after physical death, typically in a spiritual or ghostlike afterworld. Deceased persons are usually believed to go to a specific region or plane of existence in this afterworld, often depending on the rightness of their actions during life.
Some believe the afterlife includes some form of preparation for the soul to transfer to another body (reincarnation). The major views on the afterlife derive from religion, esotericism and metaphysics. There are those who are skeptical of the existence of the afterlife, or believe that it is absolutely impossible, such as the materialist-reductionists, who believe that the topic is supernatural, therefore does not really exist or is unknowable. In metaphysical models, theists generally believe some sort of afterlife awaits people when they die. Atheists generally do not believe in a life after death. Members of some generally non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, tend to believe in an afterlife like reincarnation but without reference to God.
Agnostics generally hold the position that like the existence of God, the existence of supernatural phenomena, such as souls or life after death, is unverifiable and therefore unknowable.[8] Many religions, whether they believe in the souls existence in another world like Christianity, Islam and many pagan belief systems, or in reincarnation like many forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, believe that ones status in the afterlife is a reward or punishment for their conduct during life, with the exception of Calvinistic variants of Protestant Christianity, which believes one's status in the afterlife is a gift from God and cannot be earned during life.
Eschatology is a part of theology and philosophy concerned with the final events in the history of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humanity, commonly referred to as the end of the world. While in mysticism the phrase refers metaphorically to the end of ordinary reality and reunion with the Divine, in many traditional religions it is taught as an actual future event prophesied in sacred texts or folklore. More broadly, eschatology may encompass related concepts such as the Messiah or Messianic Age, the end time, and the end of days.
Futurism as an art movement originated in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century. It developed largely in Italy and in Russia, although it also had adherents in other countries - in England and Portugal for example. The Futurists explored every medium of art, including painting, sculpture, poetry, theatre, music, architecture and even gastronomy. Futurists had a passionate loathing of ideas from the past, especially political and artistic traditions. They also espoused a love of speed, technology, and violence. Futurists dubbed the love of the past passisme. The car, the plane, and the industrial town were all legendary for the Futurists, because they represented the technological triumph of people over nature. The Futurist Manifesto of 1909 declared: "We will glorify warthe world's only hygienemilitarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman."[9] Though it owed much of its character and some of its ideas to radical political movements, it had little involvement in politics until the autumn of 1913.[10]
One[which?] of the many 20th-century classical movements in music paid homage to, included, or imitated machines. Closely identified with the central Italian Futurist movement were brother composers Luigi Russolo (1885-1947) and Antonio Russolo (1877-1942), who used instruments known as intonarumori - essentially sound boxes used to create music out of noise. Luigi Russolo's futurist manifesto, The Art of Noises, is considered[by whom?] one of the most important and influential texts in 20th century musical aesthetics. Other examples of futurist music include Arthur Honegger's Pacific 231 (1923), which imitates the sound of a steam locomotive, Prokofiev's "The Steel Step", and the experiments of Edgard Varse.
Literary futurism made its debut with F.T. Marinetti's Manifesto of Futurism (1909). Futurist poetry used unexpected combinations of images and hyper-conciseness (not to be confused with the actual length of the poem). Futurist theater works have scenes a few sentences long, use nonsensical humor, and try to discredit the deep-rooted dramatic traditions with parody. Longer literature forms, such as novels, had no place in the Futurist aesthetic, which had an obsession with speed and compression.
Futurism expanded to encompass other artistic domains and ultimately included painting, sculpture, ceramics, graphic design, industrial design, interior design, theatre design, textiles, drama, literature, music and architecture. In architecture, it featured a distinctive thrust towards rationalism and modernism through the use of advanced building materials. The ideals of futurism remain as significant components of modern Western culture; the emphasis on youth, speed, power and technology finding expression in much of modern commercial cinema and commercial culture. Futurism has produced several reactions, including the 1980s-era literary genre of cyberpunk which often treated technology with a critical eye.
Science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein defined science fiction as:
More generally, one can regard science fiction as a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology. Science fiction is found in books, art, television, films, games, theater, and other media. Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Settings may include the future, or alternative time-lines, and stories may depict new or speculative scientific principles (such as time travel or psionics), or new technology (such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[12]
Some science fiction authors construct a postulated history of the future called a "future history" that provides a common background for their fiction. Sometimes authors publish a timeline of events in their history, while other times the reader can reconstruct the order of the stories from information in the books. Some published works constitute "future history" in a more literal sensei.e., stories or whole books written in the style of a history book but describing events in the future. Examples include H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come (1933) - written in the form of a history book published in the year 2106 and in the manner of a real history book with numerous footnotes and references to the works of (mostly fictitious) prominent historians of the 20th and 21st centuries.
The linear view of time (common in Western thought) draws a stronger distinction between past and future than does the more common cyclic time of cultures such as India, where past and future can coalesce much more readily.[13]
See more here:
Future - Wikipedia
Posted in Futurist
Comments Off on Future – Wikipedia
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania …
Posted: December 11, 2016 at 11:14 pm
This is a list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. Although it is mostly ocean and spans many continental plates, Oceania is often listed with the continents.
This list follows the boundaries of geopolitical Oceania, which includes Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. The main continental landmass of Oceania is Australia.[1]
The boundary between Asia and Oceania is not clearly defined. For political reasons, the United Nations considers the boundary between the two regions to be the IndonesianPapua New Guineaian border.[2] Papua New Guinea is occasionally considered Asian as it neighbours Indonesia, but this is rare, and it is generally accepted to be part of Oceania. Geographically, Papua and West Papua provinces are part of Oceania.
This section includes all sovereign states located in Oceania that are members of the United Nations.[3] All are full members of the Pacific Islands Forum.[4]
Commonwealth of Australia
English: Canberra
English: Palikir
Republic of Fiji
Fijian: Viti Matanitu ko Viti
Fiji Hindi /Fiji - / Ripablik ph Phj
English: Suva
Fijian: Suva
Fiji Hindi: Suva
Republic of Kiribati
Gilbertese: Kiribati Ribaberiki Kiribati
English: Tarawa
English: Bairiki
Republic of the Marshall Islands
Marshallese: Aeln in Maje - Aolepn Aorkin Maje
English: Majuro
Republic of Nauru
Nauruan: Naoero - Repubrikin Naoero
Mori: Aotearoa
English: Wellington
Republic of Palau
Palauan: Belau Beluu er a Belau
English: Ngerulmud
Palauan: Ngerulmud
Independent State of Papua New Guinea
Tok Pisin: Papua Niugini Independen Stet bilong Papua Niugini
English: Port Moresby
Independent State of Samoa
Samoan: Samoa Malo Saoloto Tuto'atasi o Samoa
English: Apia
Samoan: Apia
English: Honiara
Kingdom of Tonga
Tongan: Tonga Pule'anga Tonga
English: Nuku'alofa
Tongan: Nuku'alofa
Tuvaluan: Tuvalu
English: Funafuti
Republic of Vanuatu
English: Vanuatu Republic of Vanuatu
French: Vanuatu Rpublique de Vanuatu
Bislama: Port Vila
English: Port Vila
French: Port-Vila
The two entries in this section (Cook Islands and Niue) are states in free association with New Zealand. While maintaining a close constitutional and political relationship with New Zealand, both states are members of several United Nations specialized agencies with full treaty-making capacity, and have independently engaged in diplomatic relations with sovereign states under their own name. Both are also full members of the Pacific Islands Forum. Because of these features, they are sometimes considered to have de facto status as sovereign states.[12]
The following are entities considered to be within Oceania which are either:
1. Federal territories of sovereign states located outside these states' mainland.
2. Territories that constitute integral parts of sovereign states in some form other than a federal relationship, where a significant part of the sovereign state's landmass is located outside Oceania or the territory is located outside the sovereign state's mainland. Many of these territories are often described as dependencies or autonomous areas.
3. Dependent territories of sovereign states.
Two of these territories (French Polynesia and New Caledonia) are associate members of the Pacific Islands Forum, while five others (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna) hold observer status within the organization.
Territory of American Samoa[7]
Samoan: Amerika Smoa
Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands
Coral Sea Islands Territory
Rapa Nui: Rapa Nui
Overseas Lands of French Polynesia[7]
Territory of Guam
Chamorro: Guahan[5]
State of Hawaii
Hawaiian: Hawaii Mokuina o Hawaii
Territory of New Caledonia and Dependencies
Territory of Norfolk Island[7]
Norfuk: Teratri of Norf'k Ailen
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands[7]
Chamorro: Islas Marinas Sankattan Siha Na Islas Marinas
Pitcairn Group of Islands
Pitkern: Pitkern Ailen
English: Tokelau
Territory of the Wallis and Futuna Islands
West Papua Province
See original here:
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania ...
Posted in Oceania
Comments Off on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania …
Japan launches cargo ship to space station – CBS News
Posted: at 10:49 pm
A Japanese H-IIB rocket carrying the HTV cargo ship blasts off from the Tanegashima Space Center, kicking off a four-day mission to deliver equipment and supplies to the International Space Station.
NASA TV
A powerful rocket carrying a Japanese HTV cargo ship streaked into orbit Friday, kicking off a four-day trip to the International Space Station to deliver 4.3 tons of supplies and equipment, including a set of powerful new batteries for the labs solar power system.
The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries H-IIB rockets hydrogen-fueled LE-7A main engine and four solid-fuel strap-on boosters ignited with a spectacular rush of flame at 8:26:47 a.m. EST (GMT-5; 10:26 p.m. local time), quickly pushing the 174-foot-tall booster away from its seaside launch pad at the picturesque Tanegashima Space Center.
Climbing directly into the plane of the space stations orbit, the rocket smoothly accelerated, leaving the rocky coast of Tanegashima Island behind as it shot away on a southeasterly trajectory.
Fourteen minutes later, the H-IIBs LE-5B second stage shut down and a minute after that, the HTV Kounotori cargo ship was released to fly on its own.
If all goes well, the spacecraft will catch up with the International Space Station early Tuesday, pulling up to within about 30 feet and then standing by while Expedition 50 commander Shane Kimbrough and French astronaut Thomas Pesquet, operating the labs robot arm, lock onto a grapple fixture.
From there, the HTV will be pulled in for berthing at the Earth-facing port of the forward Harmony module.
The HTVs pressurized compartment is packed with 5,657 pounds of equipment and supplies, including 2,786 pounds of food, water, clothing and other crew supplies, 1,461 pounds of station hardware, 925 pounds of science gear, 344 pounds of computer equipment, 77 pounds of spacesuit equipment and 62 pounds of Russian hardware.
Mounted on a pallet in the supply ships unpressurized cargo bay are six 550-pound lithium-ion batteries that will replace 12 aging nickel-hydrogen power packs in one of the stations four sets of solar arrays. Three more HTV flights will be needed to ferry up the remaining three sets of batteries needed by the stations other arrays.
The HTVs arrival will be a relief to NASA, coming less than two weeks after a Russian Progress supply ship carrying 2.5 tons of equipment and supplies was destroyed during launch Dec. 1 after a malfunction of some sort in the Soyuz boosters upper stage.
Play Video
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blew up on a launch pad in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on Thursday. It was set to launch Saturday but was completely destro...
That failure came three months after a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral during a pre-launch test on Sept. 1. The Falcon 9, which is used to launch SpaceX Dragon space station supply ships, is not expected to resume flights until January, and its not yet clear when the next Dragon might be launched.
NASA managers say the station currently is well stocked with critical supplies and that the Progress failure will have minimal impact on lab operations. But the HTVs arrival will be a welcome milestone, especially the delivery of the new batteries.
The station gets most of its power from four huge sets of rotating solar arrays, two on each end of a long truss. Each set of arrays relies on 12 nickel hydrogen batteries to provide electricity when the station is in Earths shadow and out of direct sunlight.
The pallet carrying the six new batteries will be pulled out of the HTVs unpressurized cargo bay by the stations robot and moved to the right side of the power truss. The batteries will be robotically installed at the base of the inboard starboard 4, or S4, set of arrays, which feed power channels 1A and 3A.
Nine of the older batteries will be attached to the cargo pallet as the replacements are installed. The pallet eventually will be moved back into the HTV, which will burn up in the atmosphere when the cargo ship re-enters around Jan. 20.
The remaining three retired batteries will be attached to adapter plates beside the new batteries where they will remain in long-term storage. Two spacewalks will be required in January to install the adapter plates and complete the battery replacement work.
2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Read more from the original source:
Japan launches cargo ship to space station - CBS News
Posted in Space Station
Comments Off on Japan launches cargo ship to space station – CBS News
Cohousing – Wikipedia
Posted: at 8:03 am
Cohousing[1] is an intentional community of private homes clustered around shared space. Each attached or single family home has traditional amenities, including a private kitchen. Shared spaces typically feature a common house, which may include a large kitchen and dining area, laundry, and recreational spaces. Shared outdoor space may include parking, walkways, open space, and gardens. Neighbors also share resources like tools and lawnmowers.
Households have independent incomes and private lives, but neighbors collaboratively plan and manage community activities and shared spaces. The legal structure is typically an HOA, Condo Association, or Housing Cooperative. Community activities feature regularly-scheduled shared meals, meetings, and workdays. Neighbors gather for parties, games, movies, or other events. Cohousing makes it easy to form clubs, organize child and elder care, and carpool.
Cohousing facilitates interaction among neighbors for social and practical benefits, economic and environmental benefits.[2][3]
Neighbors commit to being part of a community for everyones mutual benefit. Cohousing cultivates a culture of sharing and caring. Design features and neighborhood size (typically 20-40 homes) promote frequent interaction and close relationships.
Cohousing neighborhoods are designed for privacy as well as community. Residents balance privacy and community by choosing their own level of engagement.
Decision making is participatory and often based on consensus. Self-management empowers residents, builds community, and saves money.
Cohousing communities support residents in actualizing shared values. Cohousing communities typically adopt green approaches to living.
The modern theory of cohousing originated in Denmark in the 1960s among groups of families who were dissatisfied with existing housing and communities that they felt did not meet their needs. Bodil Graae wrote a newspaper article titled "Children Should Have One Hundred Parents,"[4] spurring a group of 50 families to organize around a community project in 1967. This group developed the cohousing project Sttedammen, which is the oldest known modern cohousing community in the world. Another key organizer was Jan Gudmand Hyer who drew inspiration from his architectural studies at Harvard and interaction with experimental U.S. communities of the era. He published the article "The Missing Link between Utopia and the Dated Single Family House" [5] in 1968, converging a second group.
The Danish term bofllesskab (living community) was introduced to North America as cohousing by two American architects, Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, who visited several cohousing communities and wrote a book about it.[2] The book resonated with some existing and forming communities, such as Sharingwood in Washington state and N Street in California, who embraced the cohousing concept as a crystallization of what they were already about. Though most cohousing groups seek to develop multi-generational communities, some focus on creating senior communities. Charles Durrett later wrote a handbook on creating senior cohousing.[3] The first community in the United States to be designed, constructed and occupied specifically for cohousing is Muir Commons in Davis, California.[6][7]Architects, Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett were responsible for the programming and the design of the site plan, common house and private houses.
There are precedents for cohousing in the 1920s in New York with the cooperative apartment housing with shared facilities and good social interaction. The Siheyuan, or quadrangle design of housing in China has a shared courtyard and is thus similar in some respects to cohousing.
Cohousing communities are part of the new cooperative economy in the United States and are predicted to expand rapidly in the next few decades as individuals and families seek to live more sustainably, and in community with neighbors. Since the first cohousing community was completed in the U.S. Muir Commons in Davis, California, now celebrating 25 years more than 160 communities have been established in 25 states plus the District of Columbia, with more than 125 in process. For a listing of cohousing communities visit http://www.cohousing.org/directory. Most cohousing communities are intergenerational with both children and elders; in recent years, senior cohousing focused on older adult needs have grown. These communities come in a variety, but are often environment friendly and socially sustainable.
Hundreds of cohousing communities exist in Denmark and other countries in northern Europe. In Canada, there are 11 completed communities, and approximately 19 in the forming or development phase (see [1]). There are more than 300 cohousing communities in the Netherlands (73 mixed-generation and 231 senior cohousing), with about 60 others in planning or construction phases. [8] There are also communities in Australia (see Cohousing Australia), the United Kingdom (see UK Cohousing Network http://www.cohousing.org.uk for information, Threshold Centre Cohousing Community http://www.thresholdcentre.org.uk/ offers training), and other parts of the world.
Cohousing started to develop in the UK at the end of the 1990s. The movement has gradually built up momentum and there are now 14 purpose built cohousing communities. A further 40+ cohousing groups are developing projects and new groups are forming all the time. Cohousing communities in the UK range from around 8 households to around 30 households. Most communities are mixed communities with single people, couples and families but some are only for people over 50 and one is only for women over 50 years. The communities themselves range from new developments built to modern eco standards to conversions of everything from farms to Jacobean mansions to former hospital buildings and are in urban, rural and semi- rural locations.
Because each cohousing community is planned in its context, a key feature of this model is its flexibility to the needs and values of its residents and the characteristics of the site. Cohousing can be urban, suburban or rural. The physical form is typically compact but varies from low-rise apartments to townhouses to clustered detached houses. They tend to keep cars to the periphery which promotes walking through the community and interacting with neighbors as well as increasing safety for children at play within the community. Shared green space is another characteristic, whether for gardening, play, or places to gather. When more land is available than is needed for the physical structures, the structures are usually clustered closely together, leaving as much of the land as possible "open" for shared use. This aspect of cohousing directly addresses the growing problem of suburban sprawl.
In addition to "from-scratch" new-built communities (including those physically retrofitting/re-using existing structures), there are also "retrofit" (aka "organic") communities in which neighbors create "intentional neighborhoods" by buying adjacent properties and removing fences. Often, they create common amenities such as Common Houses after the fact, while living there. N Street Cohousing in Davis, CA, is the canonical example of this type; it came together before the term Cohousing was popularized here.
Cohousing differs from some types of intentional communities in that the residents do not have a shared economy or a common set of beliefs or religion, but instead invest in creating a socially rich and interconnected community. A non-hierarchical structure employing a consensus decision-making model is common in managing cohousing. Individuals do take on leadership roles, such as being responsible for coordinating a garden or facilitating a meeting.
Cohousing communities in the U.S. currently rely on one of two existing legal forms of real estate ownership: individually titled houses with common areas owned by a homeowner association(condominium)s or a housing cooperative. Condo ownership is most common because it fits financial institutions' and cities' models for multi-unit owner-occupied housing development. U.S. banks lend more readily on single-family homes and condominiums than housing cooperatives. Charles Durrett points out that rental cohousing is a very likely future model, as it has already is being practiced in Europe.
Cohousing differs from standard condominium development and master-planned subdivisions because the development is designed by, or with considerable input from, its future residents. The design process invariably emphasizes consciously fostering social relationships among its residents. Common facilities are based on the actual needs of the residents, rather than on what a developer thinks will help sell units. Turnover in cohousing developments is typically very low, and there is usually a waiting list for units to become available.
In Europe the term "joint building ventures" has been coined to define the form of ownership and housing characterized as cohousing. According to the European Urban Knowledge Network (EUKN): "Joint building ventures are a legal federation of persons willing to build who want to create owner-occupied housing and to participate actively in planning and building."[9]
Go here to see the original:
Posted in Intentional Communities
Comments Off on Cohousing – Wikipedia
Tyler Cowen: Ahoy, young libertarian! Seasteading could …
Posted: at 7:54 am
Following the election of Donald Trump, some Americans are asking whether they should move to Canada. Yet a more radical idea is re-emerging as a vehicle for political liberty, namely seasteading. Thats the founding of new and separate governance units on previously unoccupied territory, possibly on the open seas.
Imagine, for instance, autonomously governed sea platforms, with a limited number of citizens selling health and financial services to the rest of the world. Advances in robotics and artificial intelligence might make the construction and settlement of such institutions more practical than it seemed 15 years ago.
Although seasteading is sometimes viewed as an extension of self-indulgent Silicon Valley utopianism, we should not dismiss the idea too quickly. Variants on seasteading led to the founding of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with the caveat that conquest was involved, as these territories were not unsettled at the time. Circa 2016, there is a potential seasteading experiment due in French Polynesia. The melting of the Arctic ice may open up new areas for human settlement. Chinese construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea raises the prospect that the private sector, or a more liberty-oriented government, might someday do the same. Along more speculative lines, there is talk about someday colonizing Mars or even Titan, a moon of Saturn.
On the intellectual front, a book about seasteading, by Joe Quirk and Patri Friedman, is due out in March of 2017.
Seasteading obviously faces significant obstacles. The eventual constraint is probably not technology in the absolute sense, but whether there is enough economic motive to forsake the benefits of densely populated human settlements and the protection of traditional nation-states. Many nations have effective corporate tax rates in the 10- to 20-per cent range, which doesnt seem confiscatory enough to take to the high seas for economic motives alone.
Furthermore, current outposts such as Dubai, Singapore and the Cayman Islands offer varied legal and regulatory environments for doing business, in addition to the comforts of landlubber society. More and more foreign businesses are incorporating in Delaware to enjoy the benefits of American law. So, for all the inefficiencies and petty tyrannies of the modern world, seasteading faces pretty stiff competition.
Counterintuitively, I see the greatest promise for seasteading as a path toward more rather than less human companionship.
It is sometimes forgotten there is a good deal of de facto seasteading today, in the form of cruise ships. They sail in international waters, are owned by private corporations and the law on board is generated by contract and governed by private arbitration. Plenty of cruise lines and ships compete for business in a relatively unregulated environment, with global business approaching $40 billion a year, in the range of the gross domestic product of countries such as Ghana, Serbia or Turkmenistan.
One lesson of current seasteading is that it is not much of a vehicle for political liberty. To be sure, customers choose their cruise lines freely. (You might opt for the forthcoming Donald Trump Victory Cruise.) Still, the actual substance of most cruise contracts brings little democratic participation or libertarian autonomy on the high seas. The cruise companies dont hesitate to regulate passenger behaviour for the good of the broader enterprise.
The second and more important lesson is that some of the elderly have started living on cruise ships full-time. A good assisted-living facility might cost $80,000 a year in the U.S., more than many year-long cruises. (Cruising could also be cheaper than living in an expensive neighbourhood.) Furthermore, the cruise offers regular contact with other passengers and also the crew, and the lower average age means that fewer of ones friends and acquaintances are passing away. The weather may be better, and there is the option of going onshore to visit relatives and go shopping.
The cruise ship removes the elderly from full-service hospitals, but on the plus side, regular social contact is good for health, passengers are watched much of the time and there is a doctor minutes away. Better health and human companionship could be major motives for this form of seasteading. I could imagine many more of the elderly going this route in the future, and some cruise lines already are offering regular residences on board.
The goal of this seasteading enterprise is to pack people more tightly together rather than to open up broad new vistas for a Wild West kind of settlement. The proprietors make physical space more scarce, not less, to induce better clustering. So seasteading does have a future, but it is to join and build a new and crowded communitarian project, not to get away from one. Cowen is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include Average Is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation.
Originally posted here:
Posted in Seasteading
Comments Off on Tyler Cowen: Ahoy, young libertarian! Seasteading could …
Liberty – Wikipedia
Posted: at 7:54 am
Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties."[3]
Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.[4]
Philosophers from earliest times have considered the question of liberty. Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121180 AD) wrote of "a polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed."[5] According to Thomas Hobbes (15881679), "a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do" (Leviathan, Part 2, Ch. XXI).
John Locke (16321704) rejected that definition of liberty. While not specifically mentioning Hobbes, he attacks Sir Robert Filmer who had the same definition. According to Locke:
John Stuart Mill (18061873), in his work, On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion.[7] In his book Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to the liberty that comes from self-mastery, the freedom from inner compulsions such as weakness and fear.
The modern concept of political liberty has its origins in the Greek concepts of freedom and slavery.[8] To be free, to the Greeks, was to not have a master, to be independent from a master (to live like one likes).[9] That was the original Greek concept of freedom. It is closely linked with the concept of democracy, as Aristotle put it:
"This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality."[10]
This applied only to free men. In Athens, for instance, women could not vote or hold office and were legally and socially dependent on a male relative.[11]
The populations of the Persian Empire enjoyed some degree of freedom. Citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were given the same rights and had the same freedom of religion, women had the same rights as men, and slavery was abolished (550 BC). All the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era when slaves typically did such work.[12]
In the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups had some rights to freedom, tolerance, and equality. The need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka the Great, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war also appears to have been condemned by Ashoka.[13] Slavery also appears to have been non-existent in the Maurya Empire.[14] However, according to Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, "Ashoka's orders seem to have been resisted right from the beginning."[15]
Roman law also embraced certain limited forms of liberty, even under the rule of the Roman Emperors. However, these liberties were accorded only to Roman citizens. Many of the liberties enjoyed under Roman law endured through the Middle Ages, but were enjoyed solely by the nobility, rarely by the common man.[citation needed] The idea of inalienable and universal liberties had to wait until the Age of Enlightenment.
The social contract theory, most influentially formulated by Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau (though first suggested by Plato in The Republic), was among the first to provide a political classification of rights, in particular through the notion of sovereignty and of natural rights. The thinkers of the Enlightenment reasoned that law governed both heavenly and human affairs, and that law gave the king his power, rather than the king's power giving force to law. This conception of law would find its culmination in the ideas of Montesquieu. The conception of law as a relationship between individuals, rather than families, came to the fore, and with it the increasing focus on individual liberty as a fundamental reality, given by "Nature and Nature's God," which, in the ideal state, would be as universal as possible.
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill sought to define the "...nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual," and as such, he describes an inherent and continuous antagonism between liberty and authority and thus, the prevailing question becomes "how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control".[4]
England and following the Act of Union 1707 Great Britain, laid down the cornerstones to the concept of individual liberty.
In 1166 Henry II of England transformed English law by passing the Assize of Clarendon act. The act, a forerunner to trial by jury, started the abolition of trial by combat and trial by ordeal.[16]
In 1215 the Magna Carta was drawn up, it became the cornerstone of liberty in first England, Great Britain and later, the world.
In 1689 the Bill of Rights grants 'freedom of speech in Parliament', which lays out some of the earliest civil rights.[19]
In 1859 an essay by the philosopher John Stuart Mill, entitled On Liberty argues for toleration and individuality. If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.[20][21]
In 1958 Two Concepts of Liberty, by Isaiah Berlin, determines 'negative liberty' as an obstacle, as evident from 'positive liberty' which promotes self-mastery and the concepts of freedom.[22]
In 1948 British representatives attempt to and are prevented from adding a legal framework to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (It was not until 1976 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force, giving a legal status to most of the Declaration.) [23]
The United States of America was one of the first nations to be founded on principles of freedom and equality, with no king and no hereditary nobility[citation needed]. According to the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, all men have a natural right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". But this declaration of liberty was troubled from the outset by the presence of slavery. Slave owners argued that their liberty was paramount, since it involved property, their slaves, and that the slaves themselves had no rights that any White man was obliged to recognize. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, upheld this principle. It was not until 1866, following the Civil War, that the US constitution was amended to extend these rights to persons of color, and not until 1920 that these rights were extended to women.[24]
By the later half of the 20th century, liberty was expanded further to prohibit government interference with personal choices. In the United States Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice William O. Douglas argued that liberties relating to personal relationships, such as marriage, have a unique primacy of place in the hierarchy of freedoms.[25] Jacob M. Appel has summarized this principle:
I am grateful that I have rights in the proverbial public square but, as a practical matter, my most cherished rights are those that I possess in my bedroom and hospital room and death chamber. Most people are far more concerned that they can control their own bodies than they are about petitioning Congress.[26]
In modern America, various competing ideologies have divergent views about how best to promote liberty. Liberals in the original sense of the word see equality as a necessary component of freedom. Progressives stress freedom from business monopoly as essential. Libertarians disagree, and see economic freedom as best. The Tea Party movement sees big government as the enemy of freedom.[27][28]
France supported the Americans in their revolt against English rule and, in 1789, overthrew their own monarchy, with the cry of "Libert, galit, fraternit". The bloodbath that followed, known as the reign of terror, soured many people on the idea of liberty. Edmund Burke, considered one of the fathers of conservatism, wrote "The French had shewn themselves the ablest architects of ruin that had hitherto existed in the world."[29]
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, liberalism is "the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice". But they point out that there is considerable discussion about how to achieve those goals. Every discussion of freedom depends of three key components: who is free, what are they free to do, and what forces restrict their freedom.[30] John Gray argues that the core belief of liberalism is toleration. Liberals allow others freedom to do what they want, in exchange for having the same freedom in return. This idea of freedom is personal rather than political.[31] William Safire points out that liberalism is attacked by both the Right and the Left: by the Right for defending such practices as abortion, homosexuality, and atheism, by the Left for defending free enterprise and the rights of the individual over the collective.[32]
According to the Encyclopdia Britannica, Libertarians hold liberty as their primary political value.[33] Libertarian philosophers hold that there is no tenable distinction between personal and economic liberty that they are, indeed, one and the same, to be protected (or opposed) together. In the context of U.S. constitutional law, for example, they point out that the constitution twice lists "life, liberty, and property" without making any distinctions within that phrase.[34] Their approach to implementing liberty involves opposing any governmental coercion, aside from that which is necessary to prevent individuals from coercing each other.[35] This is known as the non-aggression principle.[36]
According to republican theorists of freedom, like the historian Quentin Skinner[37][38] or the philosopher Philip Pettit,[39] one's liberty should not be viewed as the absence of interference in one's actions, but as non-domination. According to this view, which originates in the Roman Digest, to be a liber homo, a free man, means not being subject to another's arbitrary will, that is to say, dominated by another. They also cite Machiavelli who asserted that you must be a member of a free self-governing civil association, a republic, if you are to enjoy individual liberty.[40]
The predominance of this view of liberty among parliamentarians during the English Civil War resulted in the creation of the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.[citation needed]
Socialists view freedom as a concrete situation as opposed to a purely abstract ideal. Freedom involves agency to pursue one's creative interests unhindered by coercive social relationships that one is forced to engage in in order to survive under a given social system. From this perspective, freedom requires both the material economic conditions that make freedom possible alongside the social relationships and institutions conducive to freedom. As such, the socialist concept of freedom is held in contrast to the liberal concept of freedom.[41]
The socialist conception of freedom is closely related to the socialist view of creativity and individuality. Influenced by Karl Marx's concept of alienated labor, socialists understand freedom to be the ability for an individual to engage in creative work in the absence of alienation, where alienated labor refers to work people are forced to perform and un-alienated work refers to individuals pursuing their own creative interests.[42]
For Karl Marx, meaningful freedom is only attainable in a communist society characterized by superabundance and free access, would eliminate the need for alienated labor and enable individuals to pursue their own creative interests, leaving them to develop their full potentialities. This goes alongside Marx's emphasis on the reduction of the average length of the workday to expand the "realm of freedom" for each person.[43][44] Marx's notion of communist society and human freedom is thus radically individualistic.[45]
"This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave."
Go here to see the original:
Posted in Freedom
Comments Off on Liberty – Wikipedia
| Boston University
Posted: at 7:43 am
17
Interdisciplinary Certificates Available
Master of Public Health (MPH) Gain the knowledge and skills you'll need to become an effective public health professional.
Current Research Groups Just Within The School of Public Health
Master of Arts (MA) & Master of Science (MS) Programs Study cutting-edge research methods in biostatistics, environmental health, epidemiology, or health services research.
Granted In Research Awards In 2015
Doctor of Philosophy Get advanced training and collaborate with senior faculty in rigorous, original research.
Faculty Members That Are Leaders In Their Fields And Your Mentors
Doctor of Public Health Earn your degree through an interdisciplinary program for professionals who aspire to high-level leadership positions.
Unique Programs For Interdisciplinary Learning
Dual Degree Programs Become a public health leader in the context of business & management, law, social work, medicine, or medical sciences.
Graduates Employed Within 6 Months Of Graduation
Undergraduate Programs in Public Health Accelerate your learning by combining a bachelor of arts or science with an MPH degree.
Graduate Certificate Programs Pursue advanced training as part of your professional development plan or a jumpstart your career.
Original post:
| Boston University
Posted in Human Longevity
Comments Off on | Boston University
How the alt-right became racist, Part 2: Long before Trump …
Posted: at 7:41 am
While future neo-Nazi Richard Spencer was struggling with white nationalism in theworld of political journalism, most of the people who would later comprise the alt-rights online shock troops were involved in a different venture. They were fighting hard to make former Texas congressman Ron Paul the Republican presidential nominee, first in 2008 and again in 2012. Its more than uncanny how many current alt-right leaders backed the former Texas congressman in his quixotic bids to stop GOP mainstream candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Pretty much all of the top personalities at the Right Stuff, a neo-Nazi troll mecca, started off as conventional libertarians and Paul supporters, according to the sites creator, an anonymous man who goes by the name Mike Enoch.
We were all libertarians back in the day. I mean, everybody knows this, he said on an alt-right podcast last month. After Pauls second campaign failed, Enochcompletely disengaged from politics, he added.
Paul was also the favorite of Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, the two men who created the term alternative right and formed the annual conference where old-school right-wing racists met and mentored young and disaffected conservativeintellectuals.
The Texas congressman was also the preferred candidate of Jared Taylor and the readers of his white nationalist website American Renaissance.
That feeling of admiration was apparently mutual. In the 1990s, Paul in his famously racist newsletters repeatedly promoted Tayloras part of a paleolibertarian strategy designed to attract racist white people. (Paul subsequently denied writing them, however.) Later on, American Renaissance wrote a featured article stating that the race-realist section of the blogosphere is one of the most enthusiastic sources of support for Mr. Paul and praised his good instincts on race, despite the fact that the author believed that Paul was no longer interested in catering to overt racists, as he formerly had.
Paul had nonracist supporters as well who would later become alt-right figures. (The self-described neo-Nazi types refer to them as alt-lite.) Libertarian radio host Alex Jones of InfoWars, a man famous for his belief in lizard people and his elaborate 9/11 conspiracy theories, dislikes being identified with the alt-right. But he is an important figure in the movements history and a key link from Ron Paul to Donald Trump.Today Jones is known today as an ardent Trump supporter but his affection for Ron Paul and his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, was even greater while they were runningtheir respective presidential campaigns.
In the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, Ron Paul was also by farthe preferred presidential candidate of the racist Politically Incorrect board known as /pol/ on 4chan. Throughout both of his unsuccessful runs, the forum served as a critical organizing portal and talent incubator for Ron Pauls youthful, tech-savvy supporters to pull off fundraising and digital feats that many political observers incorrectly attributed to hisofficial campaign staff.
The energy and enthusiasm of /pol/ and its associated imitators and rivals completely disappeared after Ron Pauls candidacies ended. He did manage to become a meme within the site, however. The digital shock troops who would later become the alt-right were waiting for someone to re-energize them.
Rand Pauls staff hoped that hed be able to build on his fathers success in 2016. It didnt happen, however. In somepart,that was because the senatorcouldnt galvanize the emergentalt-right afterhe started pushinganti-racist policies and rhetoric.
It was a roadthat the younger Paul headed down after he faced an uproar in 2010 for saying that he opposed the Civil Rights Acts public accommodation provision, which requires most private businesses to serve customers regardless of their race. Paul retracted the stance and began a minority outreach program. He also began telling his fellow Republicans that they could not remain a party exclusively for white people.
If were going to be the white party, were going to be the losing party, Sen. Rand Paul said in 2014,at an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the law.
He has stuck to his new position, even in Republican presidential debates. Sen. Rand Paul has repeatedly embraced the campaign to equalize criminal sentencing, particularly for drug offenses, forwhites and nonwhites. He has also called for police to wear body cameras when on patrol and for local governments to stop using law enforcement as a revenue generator, both positions favored by Black Lives Matter activists and mainstream libertarians like those writing forReason magazine.
None of that went unnoticed by the online racists who formerly had supported RandPauls father, especially since they had found a new champion in Donald Trump, after he descended his golden elevator and denounced Mexico for sending drug dealers and rapists across the U.S. border. As one of them put it onhis personal blog:
Ron Pauls performance in the 2008 and 2012 elections was due to disaffected voters, including many White Nationalists who supported him, not ideological libertarians. All those people have since abandoned Rand Paul and thrown their support behind Donald Trump because of his foolish decision to go mainstream.
During the 2016 presidential election, Jones and his team supported the younger Paul for the GOP nomination until the very end ofhis short-lived bid.Shortly after Trump declared his candidacy,Jones top lieutenant created his own anti-Trump conspiracy theory,declaring the former television star to be a stooge for Democrats, designed to make the GOP lose to Hillary Clinton. InJanuary shortly before the Iowa caucuses, a distraught Jones pleaded with Paul to come up witha possible strategy to save his campaign.Id really like to see you as president,Jones said. How do we get you elected president?
With 16other Republican candidates competing in the Iowa caucuses, Pauls loss of the white nationalists doomed his chances in the Hawkeye State, where every sliver of vote share mattered greatly. In the words of an anonymous Paul campaign strategist quoted by Politico: Trump got in, Trump zoomed ahead, we collapsed, he had a massive impact in caging our people from us.
Return forPart 3: How the American conservative movement paved the way for white nationalism by embracing the Christian right
View original post here:
How the alt-right became racist, Part 2: Long before Trump ...
Posted in Ron Paul
Comments Off on How the alt-right became racist, Part 2: Long before Trump …