Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ideas for a better society


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Tres Juicy

Tres Juicy

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 730 posts
  • LocationSwindon, UK

Posted 12 December 2011 - 07:20 PM

Hi all,

What would you do to make society better?

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers £1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?


Any ideas?

Edited by Tres Juicy, 12 December 2011 - 07:22 PM.

  • 0

A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk

Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer


#2 immortal

immortal

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 1,300 posts
  • LocationIndia, Bangalore

Posted 12 December 2011 - 08:36 PM

Its something which some of our politicians promise to give us during the elections but exactly do the opposite after they've won it. If democracy is for the people, by the people and to the people, why give the power to make decisions to only one individual and keep hoping that he or she would bring us fortunes when its never going to change any sooner, instead with the advent of social media and other networks we can have an interactive system with both the public as well as the government interacting with each other and make a poll on every issue of the society and be a part of the decision making process rather than wait for 4 or 5 years bearing all the pain of inflation, price rise and other social factors.
  • 2

Gods are real.

And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of

existence, all aspects of human life.”

 

- James Hillman


#3 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 12,541 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 12 December 2011 - 08:39 PM

Human society has advanced due to our intelligence, communication and cooperation. Helping ourselves by helping everyone prosper seems to be a noble, efficient and rewarding aspiration. I'd like to see some kind of Minimum Subsistence Standard adopted, to make sure everyone had food, clothing and shelter. It would have to be a no-frills kind of welfare system, that provided the necessities rather than the money to buy the necessities, to avoid abuse as much as possible.

I'd like to see medicine become a not-for-profit enterprise. Everyone would have to give a great deal to see that all citizens received medical care, but I think medicine would change and become much cheaper if it were not-for-profit.

I'd completely change the educational system. The current system is much too rigid, too based on outmoded styles and standards, and tries to be a one-size-fits-all solution.

The criminal justice system needs to be completely overhauled as well. The US especially has many conflicts of interest going on with regards to prisons and sentencing.

After lengthy consideration, I'd have to say that drugs need to be legalized. There are plenty of laws already in place that deal with being intoxicated in inappropriate circumstances, or providing intoxicating substances to minors. Manufacture them professionally, tax them and remove the criminal element from the process as much as possible. If someone wants to destroy themselves, they should have the right as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

I'm a bit dicey about any redistribution of wealth. There are some sectors that should be removed from the standard for-profit business model, like medicine, health insurance, prisons, and maybe even defense, but I'm reluctant to deny wealth to someone who has worked hard for it, or that society is willing to pay exorbitant funds to for whatever they do (yes, footballers, actors, etc.). Perhaps we need a system where ordinary people can get luxury items credited to them for work that benefits society as a whole?
  • 0

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 


God does have to keep the miracles going, or no one would believe that He is real.


#4 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 6,965 posts
  • LocationWarsaw, Poland

Posted 12 December 2011 - 08:54 PM

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind


Underplayed? Check this link. Some earn a lot more than this by taking on extra duties.
  • 0
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#5 JustinW

JustinW

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 686 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 12 December 2011 - 08:58 PM

What would you do to make society better?

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers £1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?

Point B is inacurate. Sports does benifit society. It's entertainment for the world, setting up social activity and comradery between those who enjoy the same activities. No matter where they're from, what religion, or nationality, they can find common interests. I do agree they get paid intirely too much.

As far as the distribution goes, as an American I am adamently against the redistribution of other people's private property. Whether it be money or anything else for any reason. As a free person you have the choice to make the right decisions in life. And the amount of money one pays an employee is obviously based on the amount of money brought in by product or service. The fact that an employer wants to pay a certain price for one job while another employer wants to pay a lower price for another job isn't the fault of the employee. We all make desicions about where we want to work based on afew things such as skill and enjoyment, and money plays a big role in our employment aspirations. If you redestributed the money of higher paying jobs people would only aspire to be what they enjoyed doing. No one enjoys refuse. You could say they might if they were getting paid more, but I would say they wouldn't if they could just as easily get paid for doing something they enjoyed.

I don't have any quick fix ideas for solving the worlds problems. But what I do know is the more of people's property that gets redistributed(forcibly taken) the less free those people are.

I'd like to see medicine become a not-for-profit enterprise. Everyone would have to give a great deal to see that all citizens received medical care, but I think medicine would change and become much cheaper if it were not-for-profit.

Where would the funding from research come from? That could be something else for a government beaurocracy to run into the ground. Picking which research gets funded depending on the ideology of time.

Edited by JustinW, 12 December 2011 - 09:06 PM.

  • 0
"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --British author C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)

#6 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 12,541 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 12 December 2011 - 11:20 PM

Where would the funding from research come from? That could be something else for a government beaurocracy to run into the ground. Picking which research gets funded depending on the ideology of time.

The idea is that we'd have more money to spend if profit wasn't the main consideration. If we're focused on preventing or curing illnesses instead of alleviating their symptoms, there should be more money for research.

I think the biggest problem with "government bureaucracy" is that half the people in government are working against its success. I offer the Bush II gutting of many programs and agencies as examples. It's easy to make "government bureaucracy" look bad when you cut it's funding and pull its regulative "teeth".

That's another thing that should be fixed.
  • 0

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 


God does have to keep the miracles going, or no one would believe that He is real.


#7 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 8,367 posts
  • LocationSouth Eastern North Carolina

Posted 13 December 2011 - 05:41 AM

I think we should stop financial speculating, the buying up of something to try and drive up the price or in the hope the price will go up is wrong.

Buying influence in our government is wrong, or possibly it should be wrong to be able to do so, both.

Make religion report it's income and tax it.

For once and all separate religion from government.

Pursue space exploration the same way we pursue weapons superiority.

Pursue alternative energy, oil should be an industrial feedstock not the source of the worlds energy.

All industry, banks, farms, power companies, manufacturing, anything financial not covered by banks, should be regulated...
  • 0
Life is the poetry of the Universe
Love is the poetry of life

You do not possess belief, belief possesses you...

I'm always open to new ideas, I just don't let them crawl into my skull and take a dump... 

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.” — Stephen Hawking

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ~ thomas jefferson

Check out my YouTube channel here.



If I was helpful, let me know by clicking the [+] sign ->

#8 Tres Juicy

Tres Juicy

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 730 posts
  • LocationSwindon, UK

Posted 13 December 2011 - 09:43 AM

"Point B is inacurate. Sports does benefit society....."

Ok fair point, but not in the same way as medicine or preventing the build up of rubbish.

Here's my crazy idea from reading the above:

What if everything was non profit? Eliminate money entirely.

People work to produce the things that we need, but they are given to whoever needs them. This eliminates "sales companies".

I'll use my line of work as an example: We sell network equipment, Cisco, HP etc... but in this model you dont need to "sell" anything so my company (and a lot of others) are no longer necessary as the "sales" process is redundant.

This frees up all those people to share the workload for production, each person works about 3 hours a day doing something thats needs doing rather than just competing with another company trying to sell the same product into the same market.

Could this ever work?
  • 0

A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk

Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer


#9 CaptainPanic

CaptainPanic

    Usually himself

  • Moderators
  • 4,742 posts
  • LocationThe little swamp at the end of the river Rhine

Posted 13 December 2011 - 09:49 AM

Hi all,

What would you do to make society better?

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers 1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?


Any ideas?

Sorry if this does not address the major issue of global welfare and a better society, but I just want to say this:
The concept of bread and games, to keep the people happy is not just a way to keep the masses under control. Some entertainment is important for a society.
The problem with the really high salary of football players is that it ruins the competition, not that it is such a large cost to society (it's not).

Personally, I think that we should just reduce our overhead costs: reduce the number of jobs in useless sectors. And I think that the financial sector could be halved without any problem.
  • 0
Veni, vidi, modeli - I came, I saw, and I modeled it

#10 Tres Juicy

Tres Juicy

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 730 posts
  • LocationSwindon, UK

Posted 16 December 2011 - 08:53 AM

given that at the moment we have one choice for a political party
take it or leave it and all that changes is the colour of the party
why do we not make our own political party

why not punt your ideas for a better fairer society
we do have the right to stand for election and we also have a majority of the country who are sick of politicians sucking up to bankers

small ideas and political parties do and have in the past changed the world

so lets get some ideas going and who know we could have a bigger effect than we could imagine


:blink: Revolution?!


Not only that, with a scientific approach taken to changing a scociety (rather than economics and capitolism, which are quite short sighted and are already showing signs of failing), You'd think we could sort this whole mess out in a few decades
  • 0

A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk

Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer


#11 dimreepr

dimreepr

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,010 posts
  • LocationStonehouse, Gloucestershire.

Posted 16 December 2011 - 09:21 AM

Hi all,

What would you do to make society better?

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers 1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?


Any ideas?


I think the only way we could have a society that would sustain and be free of coruption is a platocracy. How you could set this system up is the big question.
  • 0
Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am.... -John Donne.

#12 kitkat

kitkat

    Lepton

  • Senior Members
  • 225 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:42 PM

I think we should stop financial speculating, the buying up of something to try and drive up the price or in the hope the price will go up is wrong.

Buying influence in our government is wrong, or possibly it should be wrong to be able to do so, both.

Make religion report it's income and tax it.

For once and all separate religion from government.

Pursue space exploration the same way we pursue weapons superiority.

Pursue alternative energy, oil should be an industrial feedstock not the source of the worlds energy.

All industry, banks, farms, power companies, manufacturing, anything financial not covered by banks, should be regulated...



There is a reason why religious organizations are tax exempt and that is to prevent replacing or eliminating government. Think about it, a large body of people gathering in one place regularly would be the perfect environment to organize a stradegy to take over government that is corrupt.
  • 0

#13 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 12,541 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:15 PM

There is a reason why religious organizations are tax exempt and that is to prevent replacing or eliminating government. Think about it, a large body of people gathering in one place regularly would be the perfect environment to organize a stradegy to take over government that is corrupt.

So making them tax-exempt is merely to placate them, to keep them from plotting the overthrow of the government?

I think money they take in that goes towards charity and upkeep costs should remain tax exempt, to keep separation of church and state. Funds that are used to expand/improve the ministries and pay salaries should be taxed.
  • 0

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 


God does have to keep the miracles going, or no one would believe that He is real.


#14 CaptainPanic

CaptainPanic

    Usually himself

  • Moderators
  • 4,742 posts
  • LocationThe little swamp at the end of the river Rhine

Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:46 PM

There is a reason why religious organizations are tax exempt and that is to prevent replacing or eliminating government. Think about it, a large body of people gathering in one place regularly would be the perfect environment to organize a stradegy to take over government that is corrupt.

I think it's the complete opposite. I think that religious organizations are so powerful, especially in the past, that they simply bargained to pay no tax, and got what they wanted from the governments.

And there are so many influences of religion in governments that you cannot say they aren't involved in the government. The US president swears on the bible at the inauguration. Plenty of European parties are actually Christian parties. The Middle East and Northern Africa often have religious governments... in fact, the list of countries without religious influence in their governments might be shorter than the list with influence.

My point is: they have already taken over.
  • 1
Veni, vidi, modeli - I came, I saw, and I modeled it

#15 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 12,541 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 16 December 2011 - 04:28 PM

What if everything was non profit? Eliminate money entirely.

People work to produce the things that we need, but they are given to whoever needs them. This eliminates "sales companies".

I'll use my line of work as an example: We sell network equipment, Cisco, HP etc... but in this model you dont need to "sell" anything so my company (and a lot of others) are no longer necessary as the "sales" process is redundant.

This frees up all those people to share the workload for production, each person works about 3 hours a day doing something thats needs doing rather than just competing with another company trying to sell the same product into the same market.

Could this ever work?

You always run into motivation problems. How much work do you have to do in order to get x number of y products delivered to you? I want a speedboat and a new car and a really good laptop, all the best made quality. Plus I want all the other stuff I buy normally. How much work at what job will get me that? Who decides? Do they get more than I do?

In theory, if EVERYONE did a productive amount of work, say six hours per day, four days per week, at a job where you were providing goods or services that helped society or managed the distribution of those supplies and services, this type of system might work. There would probably need to be some kind of standardization (since everything isn't "sold" anymore, there wouldn't need to be hundreds of different designs for many products) so we could mass-produce all the new stuff for folks. I'm not a super-picky person though; to me, if a product does what it's supposed to do, does it well and lasts a long time without a lot of maintenance, I don't much care what other bells and whistles it has, or how good it looks. I know there will be some who disagree with this and would always call for more variety.

There would be a tremendous amount of desire for everything to begin with, since so many have lived without so much for so long. I think you would probably get some kind of Communistic problems that would threaten the collapse of the system. Eventually, you'd probably end up with a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, where people would misuse this ability to get whatever limited resource product or service that's offered. The idea that others are getting more for less will almost always make its way into our psyche and ruin things for all.
  • 0

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 


God does have to keep the miracles going, or no one would believe that He is real.


#16 Tres Juicy

Tres Juicy

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 730 posts
  • LocationSwindon, UK

Posted 16 December 2011 - 05:13 PM

You always run into motivation problems. How much work do you have to do in order to get x number of y products delivered to you? I want a speedboat and a new car and a really good laptop, all the best made quality. Plus I want all the other stuff I buy normally. How much work at what job will get me that? Who decides? Do they get more than I do?

In theory, if EVERYONE did a productive amount of work, say six hours per day, four days per week, at a job where you were providing goods or services that helped society or managed the distribution of those supplies and services, this type of system might work. There would probably need to be some kind of standardization (since everything isn't "sold" anymore, there wouldn't need to be hundreds of different designs for many products) so we could mass-produce all the new stuff for folks. I'm not a super-picky person though; to me, if a product does what it's supposed to do, does it well and lasts a long time without a lot of maintenance, I don't much care what other bells and whistles it has, or how good it looks. I know there will be some who disagree with this and would always call for more variety.

There would be a tremendous amount of desire for everything to begin with, since so many have lived without so much for so long. I think you would probably get some kind of Communistic problems that would threaten the collapse of the system. Eventually, you'd probably end up with a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, where people would misuse this ability to get whatever limited resource product or service that's offered. The idea that others are getting more for less will almost always make its way into our psyche and ruin things for all.


"The idea that others are getting more for less will almost always make its way into our psyche and ruin things for all."

Tasks could be rotated so that everybody gets a go at every job (within reason - obviously things like "have-a-go brain surgery Tuesday" are a bad idea).

"How much work do you have to do in order to get x number of y products delivered to you?"

Everyone gets the same "value" of stuff - there needs to be a value assigned to your contribution to society that is fair

"I want a speedboat and a new car and a really good laptop, all the best made quality."

Grow up Phi, of course you can't have a speedboat!:lol:

Everyone gets a car (generic model) and a laptop and everything else they need to be productive in society. With the now much increased labour force, why shouldn't they?

"I'm not a super-picky person though"

Good, you won't miss the speedboat too much then...

"I know there will be some who disagree with this and would always call for more variety."

There would have to be some variety to accomodate peoples needs (sizes and things)

"There would be a tremendous amount of desire for everything to begin with, since so many have lived without so much for so long."

Once you get past the initial rush, you can start to just maintain and improve peoples quality of life

"Eventually, you'd probably end up with a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, where people would misuse this ability to get whatever limited resource product or service that's offered."

Things would need to be carefully managed, but after a while it should settle into a decent workable system (?)
  • 0

A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk

Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer


#17 jason.p

jason.p

    Quark

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • LocationWest Wales

Posted 16 December 2011 - 07:49 PM

"Do as you would be done by " as preached in one form or another in many religions, to my mind is one of the basic tenets of human relationships, (and therefore societies). Unfortunately, being the imperfect beings that we are, this becoming the norm is a forlorn hope :(
  • 0

#18 JustinW

JustinW

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 686 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 16 December 2011 - 08:04 PM

Damn Tres, your kinda taking all the fun out of living aren't you? Generic basics with no room for luxury? Give me pig headed capitolism any day. If that is construde as greedy, then your just going to have to call me greedy.

NTM, who will decide where people will apply there labor? And how long will it be before they start taking away freedoms under the ruse of being for the good of the people? I may be paranoid, but that is the way the road turns in my mind if you let someone dictate these sorts of things. Plus it would cut out competition which is detramental to quality. No one would have a personal regard for quality if there were no market to compete with or room for advancement because of that competition.

The idea is that we'd have more money to spend if profit wasn't the main consideration. If we're focused on preventing or curing illnesses instead of alleviating their symptoms, there should be more money for research.

Sorry for taking so long to respond Phi.
Maybe in a perfect world. Once they recieve the funds, who's to say that is where the money will be spent? A new problem will always emerge that will take precidence over spending it on something that is yet to exist.

Edited by JustinW, 16 December 2011 - 08:12 PM.

  • 0
"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --British author C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)

#19 michel123456

michel123456

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 4,323 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 08:27 PM

A better society where?
In the whole world? or only in the already privileged countries?
  • 0

Michel what have you done?


#20 JustinW

JustinW

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 686 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 16 December 2011 - 08:33 PM

Good question.
  • 0
"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --British author C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users