Geniocracy

[cyberpi]

Seattlegal,
I differentiate the terms 'genius' or 'intelligence' being used here with the term 'wisdom' or 'knowledge'. In the first link you provided I notice that active intelligence or creative intelligence is a different ray. I would say that ignorance is more the lack of knowledge rather than a characteristic of a person to obtain knowledge or make decisions. For example Einstein or Buddha are considered intelligent by many although they were ignorant of many things.

I have many differences with Buddhism which I would like to discuss some day later. Wrong thread and I'll be heading away for a month for work. I would simply state a key difference with me this way: If LOVE is in any way quantified by a level of wisdom, consciousness, or state of buddha, then it is that which is sacrificed and instead GIVEN up so that others might achieve it. Would you disagree?

[cyberpi]

Strange: I replied SG, and the forum says that I have replied, but the reply does not show up for me? The last post I see is: SG post #30. Also the number of replies appears to be wrong. Has the CR database become corrupted?

[cyberpi]

Well it says 29 replies now and there are 30 posts, so maybe this one will take now? This is my 3rd reply to SG.

<EDIT> Ok, that was very strange. CR is behaving strange to me. All posts suddenly appeared. Sorry for the extra posts.

[China Cat Sunflower]

O.K., I skimmed the manifesto. Very utopian, I must say. I suppose, idealistically of course, this geniocracy thing sounds about as good as any other utopian system I've heard envisioned. Which is to say it'll never bloody work, but it might make a basis for a work of science fiction.

Chris

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

O.K., I skimmed the manifesto. Very utopian, I must say. I suppose, idealistically of course, this geniocracy thing sounds about as good as any other utopian system I've heard envisioned. Which is to say it'll never bloody work, but it might make a basis for a work of science fiction.

Chris

Chris,

I agree. In the vulgar society in which we live today, no, it would not work. However, I hope that one day it can, as we are presently living in a hellish distopia.

And remember, today's science fiction is tommorow's science fact.

100 years ago, who would have thought that I could send you a message like this, right now?

I would have been laughed at.

Then someone had an idea, and I bet he was laughed at too....

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Well it says 29 replies now and there are 30 posts, so maybe this one will take now? This is my 3rd reply to SG.

<EDIT> Ok, that was very strange. CR is behaving strange to me. All posts suddenly appeared. Sorry for the extra posts.

Hi cyberpi, I think it's just a bug in the software. It comes up from time to time for posts made at the bottom of a page; you can't see them until someone else makes another post. luna

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

Chris,

I agree. In the vulgar society in which we live today, no, it would not work. However, I hope that one day it can, as we are presently living in a hellish distopia.

And remember, today's science fiction is tommorow's science fact.

100 years ago, who would have thought that I could send you a message like this, right now?

I would have been laughed at.

Then someone had an idea, and I bet he was laughed at too....

Well, I guess I'm kinda pessimistic on human nature. I think people have to compete. I think the blood lust is in our nature. Plus, I'm into the idea of me and mine.

Chris

[iri hasel]

ahem. maybe this is pedantic, but i have to wonder about a manifesto proposing rule-of-the-wise when there are grammatical errors in the first paragraph: "The proposition of Geniocracy is then a political system who’s hierarchy revolved around intelligence." there are more, i'll spare you the tedium. sure, this isn't necessarily related to quality of content, but it suggests to me a certain degree of, how shall i put this...flakiness i believe is the word i want. or perhaps intellectual laziness? neither characteristics fill me with confidence. by the way, i know i commit the grammatical error of inconsistent capitalization, but then i am not promoting 'geniusness'.

the logical flaw that leaps out at me from the very beginning (1.1.1.1) is that of presuming that our political leaders are trying to achieve the same things we are and in the same way i.e. "political leaders who think that war is a solution to political problems." if the problem in Iraq is that of an unstable state endangering international peace, then yes, war is not a solution. if the problem is rather that Iraq as a stable state will be able to raise the price of petroleum as it sees fit and endanger American corporations, then war is a great solution, from the point of view of the politicians swayed by corporate lobbyists. War is great for the GDP, as it moves lots of money around. it is in fact extremely dangerous to think that those who choose war are stupid. Over the years the US has very deliberately orchestrated or at least tolerated a great number of atrocities to achieve goals they often keep obscured from as many people as they can. stupid people couldn't manage such massive undertakings.

in general, i find hierarchies to be very old-fashioned and am much more interested in the evolution of power from a thing to be possessed by the few into an ever-fluctuating process directed by all. to believe that the type of hierarchy is the problem is akin to believing that when the house you're building keeps falling down, you simply aren't using a large enough hammer. maybe the model of hierarchial governance is inherently flawed.

And while we're at it, how about a manifesto for action now, not 100 years from now? if we make it another 100 years we may not need utopian ideology as we will presumably have solved a great many of our problems already. if we don't solve them, i believe we won't survive as a species in a way that will enable us to implement this sort of utopian social experiment.

let's see, what else...oh yes, that the brain is in control of the body: "all decisions in our body are made by the brain" which you use as an analogy to show that those who think the most deserve to rule. how very Enlightenment of you, which is to say how very 18th Century male European. we can discuss sympathetic versus parasympathetic nervous systems some other time, but suffice it to say this is a weak-ass analogy, and analogies do not constitute proof.

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by iri hasel

ahem. maybe this is pedantic, but i have to wonder about a manifesto proposing rule-of-the-wise when there are grammatical errors in the first paragraph: "The proposition of Geniocracy is then a political system who’s hierarchy revolved around intelligence." there are more, i'll spare you the tedium. sure, this isn't necessarily related to quality of content, but it suggests to me a certain degree of, how shall i put this...flakiness i believe is the word i want. or perhaps intellectual laziness? neither characteristics fill me with confidence. by the way, i know i commit the grammatical error of inconsistent capitalization, but then i am not promoting 'geniusness'.

I think you confuse genius, those with imagination and creative skills, with academic intelligence.

the logical flaw that leaps out at me from the very beginning (1.1.1.1) is that of presuming that our political leaders are trying to achieve the same things we are and in the same way i.e. "political leaders who think that war is a solution to political problems." if the problem in Iraq is that of an unstable state endangering international peace, then yes, war is not a solution. if the problem is rather that Iraq as a stable state will be able to raise the price of petroleum as it sees fit and endanger American corporations, then war is a great solution, from the point of view of the politicians swayed by corporate lobbyists. War is great for the GDP, as it moves lots of money around. it is in fact extremely dangerous to think that those who choose war are stupid. Over the years the US has very deliberately orchestrated or at least tolerated a great number of atrocities to achieve goals they often keep obscured from as many people as they can. stupid people couldn't manage such massive undertakings.

Not really sure if you are agreeing here, or not....?

in general, i find hierarchies to be very old-fashioned and am much more interested in the evolution of power from a thing to be possessed by the few into an ever-fluctuating process directed by all. to believe that the type of hierarchy is the problem is akin to believing that when the house you're building keeps falling down, you simply aren't using a large enough hammer. maybe the model of hierarchial governance is inherently flawed.

And while we're at it, how about a manifesto for action now, not 100 years from now? if we make it another 100 years we may not need utopian ideology as we will presumably have solved a great many of our problems already. if we don't solve them, i believe we won't survive as a species in a way that will enable us to implement this sort of utopian social experiment.

Well, okay, like I said, I am happy to listen to something else other than Geniocracy. What precisely do you propose? How about writing a 2000 word manifesto, and I will consider that? But in a way, you are right. Humanity is too dumb to consider this, too narrow minded, so instead, we will keep with the unstable (coughs) 'democracies' that we have now. Do you want that? Really? Look at how how unstable they are. They have had their chance.

let's see, what else...oh yes, that the brain is in control of the body: "all decisions in our body are made by the brain" which you use as an analogy to show that those who think the most deserve to rule. how very Enlightenment of you, which is to say how very 18th Century male European. we can discuss sympathetic versus parasympathetic nervous systems some other time, but suffice it to say this is a weak-ass analogy, and analogies do not constitute proof.

It's not MY analogy, but what is wrong with it, anyway?

[Saltmeister]

Hello and greetings, Enlightenment . . . and everyone else.

I hear a lot of you talking about the elitist aspect of Geniocracy.

But . . . this is a government proposed by the International Raelian Movement (IRM).

Perhaps we should change direction a little bit and start exploring the Raelian Movement. Saying that geniocracy is elitist would be stating the obvious. But sometimes what is obvious and apparent is not so simple. Think of all the wars, political conflicts, armed struggles, rise and fall of political systems, etc. as well as the everyday interactions of individual human beings. Sometimes we see only what's apparent, but neglect to look at the driving forces behind something.

That is not to say I advocate the Raelian Movement's goals, as I don't believe in any political system. I only believe in God. Karl Marx came close in suggesting the existence of a so-called "God," when saying that after centuries and centuries of revolution, humanity would final achieve its ultimate goal of agrarian equality. The need for government would disappear once humanity achieved the goal of social and moral perfection. It was Marx's notion of "God" -- a man-made rather than an eternal, uncreated God.

What I would suggest is that we get more background on this issue. The push for Geniocracy is driven by the IRM. This means that Geniocracy is not the self-existent source of Geniocracy, but comes from something else, a separate entity with it's own agenda -- the International Raelian Movement. That said, I think it's counterproductive discussing how the elitism of geniocracy would be unfavourable, unacceptable or ineffective because Geniocracy by itself has no value except as inspired by the IRM.

For those of you who haven't gone further in exploring Raelism, you might surprised at what it proposes . . . I'm quite sure the elitism perception will disappear . . . replaced by something else which may be good or bad.

Now . . . to move on. Click the link to the Raelian Church in Wikipedia.

Raelian Angels.
As the Wikipedia says, there's a group of women who suggest that feminism is the key to the world's problems. They believe that if the world's people were to be actively "feminine" it would have a positive effect on the world socially, morally and politically. Quite possibly, war and weapons may be a thing of the past. They suggest that this would happen if men, also, tried to be "feminine."

Raëlian Angels are a group of women around the world who advocate femininity and refinement for all of humanity. Raëlians believe that people must grow beyond the current aggression and violence on Earth and that this will only happen if men too, as well as women, develop their femininity.

Rather than from being a "political feminist movement," my perception of this idea is that it's got a lot to do with the idea that men, as well as women, have a "feminine side." It is often said that "men are beasts." It's also said that men find it hard to actively share or show emotion. Maybe it's because of our "bestial mentality." We're shy and claustrophobic when it comes to deep, intimate interactions, as if we're somehow embarrassed when someone penetrates that deep into our heart and soul. We're afraid of being touched and moved.

Anyone ever seen the movie Being John Malkovich? It's where people would enter into this guy's consciousness (being in John Malkovich's head) for about 15 minutes before being ejected. What I found interesting was when Lotte Schwarz, a woman got to experience John Malkovich.

Lotte Schwartz: I think it's kinda sexy that John Malkovich has a portal, y'know, sort of like, it's like, like he has a vagina. It's sort of vaginal, y'know, like he has a, he has a penis AND a vagina. I mean, it's sort of like... Malkovich's... feminine side. I like that.

I liked that too. Ok, this may sound a bit lewd . . . but here's my thinking. Maybe we all have a feminine side. We all have a penis and a vagina. Men have a feminine side and women have a masculine side. Women aren't the only ones with emotional needs. Men have them too. I suppose that's what we need a woman for. It's not just women who need strong men, a man needs a woman strong enough to penetrate the hard shell of a man's shy and claustrophobic aversion and embarrassment of deep intimacy, and penetrate deep enough to access a man's hidden and secret feelings and emotions. So women have a penis too. Wow. I can't wait to be penetrated by a woman!!!

The movie, Being John Malkovich is not about feminism, but I guess there's a lot of things in there about sexual identity. Lotte and Maxine, both women, somehow fall in love because of the portal into John Malkovich's head. It's like they were somehow lesbian and transexual. Maxine gets pregnant through Lotte by being in John Malkovich's head and using John Malkovich's sperm. Maxine gives birth to a daughter. Finally, Craig Schwarz manages to find a portal into their daughter's head and can delight in the presence of his beloved Maxine. On the outside, Craig is a girl. But deep inside is a man. A man trapped in a woman's body.

Anyway, it's not that I would advocate this Raelian Angels' movement, but I think there is some truth to the idea of men having a so-called "feminine side," feminine in the conventional and traditional sense of being "feminine." I personally feel, though, that masculinity should be retained, or at least we should try and balance out our masculine and feminine sides.

Sexual Freedoms
Concerning sexual freedoms, Raelism seems to suggest that enjoying sex is the most important thing, not who you do it with, or whether or not you do it. It's been criticised for being orgiastic. I must say it's a long way from the elitist perception we had before. They no longer sound like bigots anymore, it sounds more like an ideology promoting sensual and sexual pleasure. Sex is a luxury, not an obligation. Do it with anyone you like, whenever it feels good and if it doesn't hurt anyone.

Hmmm. Makes me wonder. Do Raelists have a standardised concept of "marriage" or is it free for all? Is everybody married to everyone else through Raelism?

Sensual Meditation
Now here's the other thing. Sensual meditation. The pursuit of sensual fulfillment.

Ok, I think I get it
Ok, first we thought they were elitist bigots. Now we see a different side to Raelism -- a sensual side.

This could be seen as positive as well as negative.

Positive - Enjoy life. Be yourself. Be who you want to be. Do what you want. Discover, rediscover and re-invent yourself. Pursue your dreams. An attitude like this reinforces itself in the community, and works together to produce something positive.

Negative - Raelism is self-absorbed and self-indulgent. Those who are religious might go further in saying that it's a kind of atheism where you are in pursuit of individual identity, but not concerned with collective identity, at least in terms of a community seeking God.

But what about geniocracy? Ok, I haven't forgotten that. I think it's derived from the sensual side of Raelism -- the part of Raelism in concerned with sensations and sensual well-being -- the feeling of being enlightened? I guess, then, that the ideal world government would be run by Raelists, people enlightened by Raelism. Raelists have the secret formula of the ideal world government. So in the same way Christians, Muslims and Marxists can come to believe that they alone can create the perfect political system, because they are "enlightened" by certain concepts, Raelists believe their enlightened qualifies them as government builders. Christians have the Spirit, Muslims the Koran and the Islamic Ideology, Marxists the social, moral and political plan of Marxist agrarianism.

I guess then, that there is some elitism involved.

[enlightenment]

Thanks for taking the time to actually do a little research.

E

[flowperson]

OK everyone. I want you all to rent and watch the films, Gattica and Blade Runner. Watch both films five times in alternating succession. Then let's all reconvene the discussion.

flow....

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by flowperson

OK everyone. I want you all to rent and watch the films, Gattica and Blade Runner. Watch both films five times in alternating succession. Then let's all reconvene the discussion.

flow....

The movie Being John Malkovich is recommended.

Gattica . . . I couldn't find that on Wikipedia. What is it?

[flowperson]

It's a ten year old or so movie about a possible future where genetically engineered humans are nurtured for success, and those who aren't as favored try anything to break the "genetic ceiling".

Gore Vidal brilliantly plays the head of a research organization. Jude Law's in it. Even gene cops play a role. Chillingly realistic, but it's really , like genocracy, just another version of misdirected eugenics. The problem is that these days the technology is so available and affordable for some that some of this is probably going on already, IMO.

I'm pretty sure I've run up against this several times. As we move on in time, human genotype and phenotype differences are probably going to mean a lot more to more people for lots of reasons; and we, as a society, are simply not at all prepared for these sorts of ethical quagmires, as exemplified by the hassles going on over stem cell research.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Indeed, Eugenic superiorty is what is actually being discussed here. But as in Gattica, there is nothing more superior than the will to succeed. Even the all star paraplegic recognized that.