If optimization is so expensive to complete and maintain how on earth can it be optimal? Also why couldn't small optimized group grow eventually into revolution if it 1) has and produces better people, 2) gets better education, 3) is more productive and 4) with its success draws more and more of humanity's cream to its arms?
Starting with such a small group is non optimal, what you are talking about is making a group of fifty or less into an Optimized system of government, which is just wrong. Optimization starts with a group of fifty, and their main concern is assimilation. At this point, starting an Optimized system of government is ludacris because each person in Optimization has one specific task, and a government can't run on 50 specific tasks, therefore, until the group becomes at least hundreds, maybe thousands, the Optimal thing to do is to assimilate, which will produce the thousands of procedures necessary to start an Optimized government.
If small optimized group is ******** and impossible then the whole optimization is such because expecting an ideology or movement to burst from non-existence straight into world superpower is insane.
I answered that in the previous question. Optimization starts with a small group, moves to mass assimilation, and then moves to physical action such as forcible assimilation and terminations. It can't happen before then. So I don't deny that a small group "starting" Optimization is stupid, because it is, the small group spreads the idea like the plague, and then takes action.
Not in the way you probably imply. I'm just saying that you're blind to how optimization would affect you.
I am not blind to how Optimization affects me, because Optimization the beginning movemet and Optimization the end effect 200 or so years from now are totally different. When Optimization affects me it will be a full time job of conducting propoganda movements and mass terminations, military strategy and cunning "right time and right place" movements. Not the problems of future leaders of Optimization, so, I guess you are right that I am blind to how it would affect me, because the end result won't affect me at all compared to the issues with the Optimization initiator of the future.
Best you can but best for what? Not for realizing optimization but for having a good life for you.
Not having a good life for me, though I enjoy life in all it's forms. Best for me in the sense of preparing myself for such a postion, preparing myself for "education in all facets", preparing myself as a leader for a radical movement group? Sure!
It's not my revolution so I don't need to have a clue. To me it just seems that your optimizing the world in discussion forums (i.e. doing nothing).
To each his own. I don't see you doing much to start your own movement though, although you are perhaps one of those mindless that thinks the world as-is is good enough for you. For me it's not. I think spreading the ideology, taking a stance on different positions, preparing for negative arguments is good enough at this point, though you may think differently.
Because 1) you're showing bad example (like you're full of crap and just looking for personal profit) and 2) you're violating your own values (by pursuing personal agenda on society's money). How do you think people would buy your optimization if they see you just as another charlatan?
If I remember right, George Washington once served the British Army, yet he somehow managed to become the first president of the United States, which grew to become the most powerful force to be reconed with. Both militarily and in the sense of government goes. So.... I don't understand why you are implicating me of being a fool, for serving something that may, AND WILL, come to pass. Unless you still consider George Washington to be full of crap following a personal agenda for personal profit, or, being a charlatan.
Or you lack the common sense to get my accusations. Again you're telling you won't start small - when this begins it'll be huge. Don't you see that you must start small. I've never implied that I expect you to charge the white house but I'm 100% sure that without a small beginning optimization will never become reality (with small beginning I'm only 99.99...% sure).
I won't "start" small. At least in a tangible sense. It spreads as an ideology, then spreads to a tangible movement. Think of it like this: in the movie Fight Club, he didn't start blowing crap up after his first fight in the alley, he continued to be crazy and spread that concept to others, eventually after he developed thousands of cells that worked together, and made it a universal concept he struck, blowing up everything that a capitalistic society would need, therefore, of course I won't start with a group of drunks in the alley. Although the ideology of Optimization and the tactics employed are not entirely based off the movie Fight Club.
Fair enough, I'll rephrase. Why do you want to give up your personal agendas? Why do you feel it would be better if government would rule your life 24/7? Why do you believe others are more apt at making decisions for you?
I don't want to give up my personal agendas, my personal agenda is to create Optimization, so if anything I will be serving it. I feel the government ruling every aspect of EVERYONES LIFE, unified under one flag and one ideology, is much better compared to thousands of political agendas being followed at the same time, along with presidents, prime ministers, dictators, monarchs, kings, tribal leaders, pimps, mob bosses, religious leaders and what not, all leading a small section of humans into different paths of expansion, with different threats to one another, versus eliminating all of them without mercy, without compassion, and without hesitation, much better than continuing on the current course.
Sharwood said:
Just like how China did not stagnate one bit, during its entire history. In situations where there is no outside competition, there must be artificial competition - capitalism - to promote advancement. Your system would not have that.
The artificial competition is continued education, propoganda, and individualized training which would continue to improve itself over time. The threat of termination would drive individuals to accomplish more, if not, termination. It's like a crossroads, though either way the system benefits because it is always becoming more efficient in all aspects.
Not if Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman have anything to say about it. Your organisation would be compromised long before it could do something like this
WIKI said:
In the early 2000s, actor Morgan Freeman expressed his desire to produce a film based on ********* **** ****. After a drawn-out development process — which Freeman states has been due to difficulties in procuring funding[2] — it now appears this will indeed be happening. IMDb, as of August 2007, upgraded the status of the project to "announced" with an estimated release date in 2009.[3] The film is to be produced by Freeman's production company, Revelations Entertainment. David Fincher, touted on Revelations' **** website as far back as 2001, stated in a December 31, 2007 interview that he is still attached to helm.[4] IMDb indicates that Stel Pavlou has written the adaptation.
The novel is also known to have influenced the movies Alien and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Optimization has about 1/3 of it's roots stationed in a book I read in middle school, just "Optimized" by theories of my own and other outside influences, so I think Morgan Freeman would have something to say about it. I terminated the name for conversations sake
This is not a Tom clancy novel. What you're proposing would involve a positively massive conspiracy, with a huge organisational structure. The larger the organisation, the greater the chance of it being infiltrated, or betrayed from within.
It doesn't matter where the massive retaliation is directed. Do you really think you can survive a nuclear holocaust? If so, you must be as crazy as those of Stalin's generals that planned to nuke Western europe and drive the tanks through the radiation clouds with no ill effects. Bioweapons are easy to direct, if you know how. They're also a hell of a lot easier to get your hands on than nukes.
I don't think or know whether I could, regardless it would destroy most forms of government as we know it and require them to be rebuilt, on ideology from the 21st century not that of outdated ideology. As far as BioWeapons go, with your claims of easy to acquire and control, I don't think so, I would like to hear your examples of what these might be, because I carry in my personal equipment a biological/chemical mask, anti-chemical cloths and materials, also an atropine injector. I also can dawn a pro-mask (Anti-Bio/Chemical) mask in less than 9 seconds given proper signals, and am immune to Antrhax. Unless you have a bunker 12 feet deep concrete bunker I don't see how you would have much of a chance of surviving a nuclear explosion. Sure you might survive the blast, but the radiation would get you. Regardless, my heart would stop seeing the sun explode down the street, and seeing people die with nasty things crawling out their eyes isn't really that disturbing. At least IMO. Nukes are the way to go. I still say if it was an EXTREMELY effective bio weapon, it would grow out of your control quickly.
They will be bitter, and they will find other ways to fight. How will your society function in the case of a massive strike, for example? How many people can you terminate? 50%? 75%? 98%? How many until you have to start accomodating the strikers in order to avoid the human race losing so much genetic material as to risk extinction?
Talent is not replaceable, if you have no one to teach it. You're a military man, Chazumi, you know as well as I do - probably better - that good tacticians are hard to train. The same is true of every specialised discipline. You'll be using more resources replacing people you've terminated than you'll be bringing in.
Again, this conflicts with what I know about the assimilation process. I DO NOT KNOW WHERE ASSIMILATION WILL LEAD OR HOW EFFECTIVE IT WILL BE. I am not a one man revolution, I need help with this, thus the reason I am propogating the concept. The promise of certain things will persuay a lot of people, regardless if the promises are met or not. I am a firm believer in the quote "The masses will fall more easily to a big lie, than a small one", ironically part of the game that brought most of us here. Initially the genetic concept will not be the biggest concern of Optimization, Optimizations main goal initially is to eliminate competetion, and spread the propaganda and ideology required to sustain it, until then, minor genetic complications like ADHD and trivial things like non-Optimal Vision (I'm just pulling that out of the hat, think small), be addressed. Eventually when nothing exists but the governing body does such things be addressed, enforced, and maintained.
