So, a rephrased hypothetical

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

So, a rephrased hypothetical

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> So, a rephrased hypothetical

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/2/2009 11:16:17 AM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

In the last "hypothetical" I wondered impact the "perfect" personal shield would have on human relations, civilization, etc. In effect, the perfect personal defense, but with no offensive capabilities. Would we achieve "Utopia" or would we achieve "Anarchy" or something else?

Unfortunately, it evolved into more about the technology and links to books and copyright violations instead much of a discussion of how this condition would affect society.   I even fell prey to it, I admit.

So...let's try again.   With the discussion OPEN to ideas and NOT OPEN to attacks on people, just DISCUSSIONS of the ideas. Sure, you can bring in other people's thoughts, such as what you've read in a book that influenced it.

For example:

"I really like what DaBgrog said in his book "The Dabgrog Society" when he ...."

Let's try to stick to a discussion and discourse. No faux attacks. No ad-hominems. Just a discussion of the issue.

Otherwise, I'll ask Mod XI to close the thread.

Can we do it? Is is possible?   That is a secondary experiment within this discussion.

Please don't participate if you don't want to follow these requests. Or you aren't sure what it is about.

So:

"What are the possible consequences/effects to human society and interaction if a perfect personal defense system was available?"

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/2/2009 4:05:59 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

OK, I'm game becaue I really don't want to be a hijacker, but more information is in order to form valid opinions.

At what age does someone get the shield ? At birth ? And does is prevent physical pain as well as injury or just injury ?

Does it prevent suicide except possibly by poisoning ? Is it necessary to remove it or turn it off for example to have surgery or like, get a piercing or a tattoo ?

You are asking for specifics based on a hypothetical situation, noone else has the exact same situation in their mind until and unless such issues are cleared up. For example if one is indestructable from their day of birth, it has a different impact than if, for example this is something you buy later in life. And does everyone get one ?

I will do my best to comply with your request, but expect some questions along the way. Those aspects which I have just brought up, I believe, would have a great impact on any valid answers to the original question. Therefore I will have to refrain from commenting further until I know a bit more about this hypothetical situation you attempt to create.

For example if it actually is strong enough to prevent the physical sensation of pain, that would change certain sports such as football, rugby and the like. If you get one at birth rather than having it fitted at a later age, it would certainly change the old schoolyard, which would have quite an impact on at least any opinion I would render.

T

(in reply to Crush)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/2/2009 4:18:05 PM

MasterG2kTR

Posts: 6677
Joined: 8/7/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

Hey Crush,

just a quick sidebar here. there seems to be a problem accessing your other thread here about "saving your change"

when I try opening it, it takes me into Board Maintenance

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/2/2009 5:05:30 PM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

NP, Term, I'd say that in general, let's make the assumption that the personal shield, since it is a theoretical, not a reality, is like "Superman's skin" pre-1970s, so:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
At what age does someone get the shield ? At birth ? And does is prevent physical pain as well as injury or just injury ?
>>> Born with it, let's say
>>> Perhaps it allows you to feel pain, but more as a sensation, not as trauma?

Does it prevent suicide except possibly by poisoning ? Is it necessary to remove it or turn it off for example to have surgery or like, get a piercing or a tattoo ?
>>>Hmmm...I'd have to say that it would prevent by default suicide by external means. I don't think we want it to be anything more than that "superskin"
>>> Interesting question. Since you are born with it in this hypothetical, then probably no skin penetration. So I wouldn't have my tats.

You are asking for specifics based on a hypothetical situation, noone else has the exact same situation in their mind until and unless such issues are cleared up. For example if one is indestructable from their day of birth, it has a different impact than if, for example this is something you buy later in life. And does everyone get one ?

I will do my best to comply with your request, but expect some questions along the way. Those aspects which I have just brought up, I believe, would have a great impact on any valid answers to the original question. Therefore I will have to refrain from commenting further until I know a bit more about this hypothetical situation you attempt to create.

For example if it actually is strong enough to prevent the physical sensation of pain, that would change certain sports such as football, rugby and the like. If you get one at birth rather than having it fitted at a later age, it would certainly change the old schoolyard, which would have quite an impact on at least any opinion I would render.

T

Hope those answers are in keeping. A "superskin" that you are born with. I see potential problems with the basis, of course. And I know not all "possible universes" are there.

So let's proceed based on the basis that someone can't make you do something physically through force. That you are able to interact with others.

From fiction, it could operate something like the second skin from the "Cross Time Engineer" by Frankowski with a blend of Superman's skin, applied/genetic from birth.

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/2/2009 6:25:35 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Didn't read that.

For one, in such a situation, I think we would be a much more adventuresome bunch. When there would be no worry about skinned knees or falling out of trees. No concern over sticks and stones or broken bones. Imagine what people would do.

Another thing comes to mind in society, for example a lone Woman walking down a dark alley. Would the device prevent rape ? If so it would have to be turned off to have sex, if it allows sex all it would take is a stronger assailant, as fear would be of little use. It would also pretty much useless for the would be victim to carry a weapon.

Now without a corresponding increase in strength, people could still be restrained or locked in a cage ( like a jail). Even today sans such a shield, some people are simply not afraid of jail. Incarceration of criminals would take on some new aspects. Even moats filled with alligators would not deter would be escapees. In such a case new ways would have to be found to contain sociopaths of all kinds.

Whether there would be more sociopaths or not is highly debatable. Several years ago someone tried to rob a buddy of mine at an ATM. It didn't go so well, he wound up beating the shit out of the would be robber and taking HIS money. The outcome of that would no doubt be different, but just how is hard to say.

Now to get out of the dark side of life, and into the normal sphere of existence for most, well I guess we wouldn't need seatbelts. Evil Knevil would not have been such a hit. Highwire acrobats would not have the same appeal even working without a net.

Thinking with that mindset, it would take some of the thrill out of life. I think people would attempt to restore the thrill by coming up with even bolder stunts to fill the void. Might be interesting to watch of course, but would it be a good thing ? Can't say for sure.

By your description though, astronauts would still need suits, and racecar drivers still would not be able to breathe flames, so there are actual limitations. Life could still be taken by deprivation of necessities, for example drowning. It also appears that many forms of suffocation would still be a threat. For example the carpet bombing of Dresden shortly after WW2, which caused people to suffocate in their homes because the bombs used up so much of the O2 in the air, would still have been effective as a lethal weapon. Also without heat shielding/dissipation they could still be burned to death, cooking inside their second skin.

In my fictional device, this has been taken into consideration, but you have not specified. If given the limitations I see, it would happen it would have a dramatic effect on society for sure. However if you make someone truly invincable, that is another story. I begin to wonder what would happen to our innate sense of self preservation.

T

(in reply to Crush)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/3/2009 2:21:14 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

So:

"What are the possible consequences/effects to human society and interaction if a perfect personal defense system was available?"

What does this system constitute? A mind that can handle anything, a physical barrier or something entirely different?

One of the main impacts would be the eradication of fear, which, in turn, would have a knock on effect on foreign policy and the ability of governments to appeal to fear in order to garner support for excursions into foreign lands.

Consequently, this would have implications for choice, because you're moving toward eradicating the emotions/instincts that mean we can make the wrong decisions; and in the event you can only make a right decision, then you have no choice.

Plus, there's no such thing as perfect; people would find a way 'round your 'perfect' shield. So, just to put this thread in context, we're discussing something that can't possibly happen and is pretty much meaningless, which should give an indication that we're not perfect by ant stretch of the imagination.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Crush)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/3/2009 8:39:20 PM

MarsBonfire

Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline

Hmmm... so, what are the political, or religious implications of this? Funny, I can't think of a single one.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/3/2009 9:29:07 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

I would have to disagree with that Mars. What would happen is that you would not be able to directly kill people, the only way would be to make their environment unsuitable for sustaining human life. This would result in victory requiring much more destruction.

This would be more difference than playing contract bridge or auction bridge for example, involving alot more natural resources. If Obama wants to go green, he really should not persue war, because all these bombs going off are certainly not healthy. This is true now, with this shield it would be true in spades (or whatever trump is).

However, if these things are universal, they probably wouldn't have that much impact on the actual balance of power, but they would on what could be used in warfare and thus change a few things. The powers that are on top militarily probably would be no different, with that I agree. But I would think at the very least the added costs of persuing warfare would have an impact, it just might not be all that profound.

T

(in reply to MarsBonfire)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/4/2009 4:40:13 PM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

Thanks for the thoughty response Term & Northern Gent...at least a couple involved and thinking...

Let me try, Once again, to make set the concept simple, which for some reason, is missed by others.

Even more simply put: "If a person was invulnerable to physical coercion, what would society look like?"
To any question: You can't be forced physically against your will. So, how does one govern, come to consensus, etc., when the threat of personal injury is no longer a viable way to control a populace, since that is the foundation of most of today's societies. Either protection within the whole or pressure from the whole, so to speak.

--------------
The side issues are side issues. Irrelevant to the discussion. The nits can be picked later.

I'm feeling "teaching a pig to sing" moment coming on....

< Message edited by Crush -- 5/4/2009 4:43:39 PM >

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/4/2009 5:04:37 PM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

/OT - but related to discussion

Discussions such as this are where you start. Then you can bring in those things about there is no such "perfect" whatever.

Sort of like mathematics...we start with some basic agreed upon premises(postulates) and see where they lead. We don't get the luxury of changing the basic premises just because. Once something fails, we review those premises to see of there is something wrong. For example, in mathematics, you don't get to assume that 1+1=2. You have to prove that from simple set theory, methods of proof and the accepted premises.

Later, we can add an agreed upon new premise and see what that brings to the discussion.

Otherwise, the discussion becomes useless, since we aren't agreeing on fundamentals to operate our discussion. Sort of like having different religious fundamentalists trying to discuss which god is the right god...they all start with different, though perhaps some overlapping, premises. They aren't going to ever reach an agreement unless it is to "agree to disagree."

The same for political discussions here. The "Liberal" set of postulates/givens are different from the "Conservative" postulates which differ from "Centrist/Libertarian/Communist/Socialist" postulates.

And even within each "group" you can't even find an agreed upon set of postulates/principles. So let's keep this simple:

/e OT

Postulate 1: You can't be harmed physically, ever, by someone else.( You'd float in space if the earth was destroyed.) And yes, one day you'd die. You aren't immortal.
Postulate 2: Not all people are the same.
Postulate 3: It happened today at noon. (throwing this in to establish a "base" for society as we exist now.)
=======

Where does that lead us as a society? Interpersonal relationships? Within the scope of those three postulates...

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Crush)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: So, a rephrased hypothetical - 5/4/2009 7:52:37 PM

caught

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/23/2006
Status: offline

Interesting idea. Just envisioning the practical implemtation is a challenge, and that may be necessary before one considers the wider implications and unintended consequences. For instance, is it a type of benign force field? Or could it be a quiet culture running in the wetware of adherents? Are people absolutely protected or 100% harmless? It sounds like the thread is interested in the former, right? Considering Crush's Three Postulates...

(assuming below postulate 1 uses a plural "you")

In a sense you're exploring a scenario where power is destroyed or drastically reduced such that the playing field of any great game can only hope to compell someone as much as the Dollar Menu may. There is no threat no more, yes. But there is no more brutal coercive power in the world. Pedophiles, murderers and rapists, whose frequency in the general population would remain the same presumably, would now be given a godlike piece of technology. And if your intuition is wondering what would remain of civilization post-noon, the answer is likely nothing we recognize and perhaps even a reality that meets many criteria for popular descriptions of hell.

(assuming below postulate 1 uses a singular "you")

Have you ever played Crysis? These new godlike powers might terrify me, driving me into a fit of feverish contemplation. I could fear my own animus. Or I could resist not the sweep of history, and then suddenly be off, basically functioning as Superman who has to fly in economy or hoof it. I'd become a great advocates for bicycles too, wherever that fit in with varminting echelons of drug empires or offing modern slavers like it was Fallout 3, and I found Lincoln's Repeater. The differential between one's invulnerability, and those who tick you off and do not have such superpowers, does present interesting moral dilemmas. Are you freed from their security interests, because you've now transcended them via miracle? That mugger isn't a threat to me. And I can sit back and comfortably regard him by all man's canons of sociology and biochemistry. But at the end of the day his statistical incidence is less relevant than the fact that he's a dirty rotten, corn pone eatin lawbreaker!

(in reply to Crush)

Profile

Post #: 11