Using Skills to Help Humanity

Using Skills to Help Humanity

Can we put our IQs to good social use?
Owner: Lumarie
This is a public group.

About

I have always felt that the most important role our IQs can play is to help improve society. It would be great if a group on this site could begin to deal with some of the most pressing problems facing our age.

Location

No map yet...

Events

0 Events...

Videos

No videos yet...

Latest Activity

  • ×
    jack
    jack commented on the group Using Skills to Help Humanity's wall:
    Dangerous Idea Women become pregnant and gestate children and men do not. Women maintain that, for this reason, they are the proper arbiters of the decisions about baby-having. The elephant in the room is that this is not a contention that is ...
    10 months ago
  • ×
    jack
    jack commented on the group Using Skills to Help Humanity's wall:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This impresses me as having been written in response to problems specific to a time and place - and being not only inadequate for, but ...
    10 months ago
  • ×
    jack
    jack commented on the group Using Skills to Help Humanity's wall:
    Ukraine I offer the following for your consideration and/or amusement. Shortly after Yanukovich abdicated his position and flew the coop and generic Russian guys started showing up in Crimea I began commenting on articles about the subject in ...
    10 months ago
  • ×
    jack
    jack commented on the group Using Skills to Help Humanity's wall:
    Migration Crisis Plan We should be fair about our analysis of the migrants. But one need not be a terrorist to be unhelpful, expensive, disruptive, destabilizing and detrimental to European culture - the most common Mideastern/North African/Islamic ...
    10 months ago
  • ×
    jack
    jack is now a member of Using Skills to Help Humanity.
    10 months ago
  • ×
    Joanna V Behan
    Joanna V Behan commented on the group Using Skills to Help Humanity's wall:
    Using and employing the groups for the humanity and for the social welfare. The manners of the groups are entailed for the fantastic and with help me write a paper in this quantum of the goodness of the incentives and for prolonged trends of ...
    1 year ago
    • Shekerev
      ×
      Shekerev For some reason I cannot see the whole comment.
      1 year ago
    • Archibald
      ×
      Archibald link building service
      9 months ago
  • ×
    Joanna V Behan
    Joanna V Behan is now a member of Using Skills to Help Humanity.
    1 year ago
  • ×
    Shekerev
    Shekerev is now a member of Using Skills to Help Humanity.
    1 year ago

Member

4 Member

  • Shekerev
  • Lumarie
  • Joanna V Behan
  • jack

Forum

    No topics yet...

The Wall

5 Wall Posts

Please login or sign up to post on this network.
Click here to sign up now.
  • jack
    by jack 10 months ago
    Dangerous Idea

    Women become pregnant and gestate children and men do not. Women maintain
    that, for this reason, they are the proper arbiters of the decisions about baby-having. The elephant in the room is that this is not a contention that is derived from ethics or fairness , but rather from a
    position of power conferred by women's biological attributes. An illustration of why we should recognize that this is wrong is that fact that our society has sanctions against men using their biological attribute of superior physical strength to gain an advantage against women..


    On the other side of the issue, though, it's also obviously neither
    fair nor ethical for anyone to try to co-opt control of women's bodies and tell them whether or
    not they're going to become pregnant or bring a given pregnancy to term.
    So, what are we to do to try to increase fairness to men, women and children? Continue with the assumption that men are to be treated as worker drones and the decision if and when to have children remains the province of women's judgement alone? Continue to hold men responsible for 'raising' and 'supporting' children whose production was in large part the result of decision-making arrived at via the inherent power of their
    mothers' physical, gender-based advantage? This seems neither equitable or desirable.


    Is it any wonder that battles of the sexes, brokering of women's favors in exchange for men's financial support, and less than healthy childhoods are so common?


    i posit the following as an outline of a solution.


    Since most people in America now agree that it's wrong for people to own other people, suppose that we explicitly recognize that mothers and their children are not exempt form this principle, and
    that in our society, no one should be allowed to raise a child unless,
    before the birth, both the mother and father have signed a contract
    stating that they are each financially responsible for one half of the
    child's support to age of majority. (These contracts would actually be
    enforced). The contract would hold irrespective of whether the man and
    woman remain together. Because of the inherent pain and risks of pregnancy
    and childbirth, the contract would require a standardized amount to be paid by the
    father to the mother in consideration of this work/risk. That amount would
    be deemed full compensation to the mother in lieu of, and would negate,
    any claim of other special rights by the mother in relation to the child and the
    father. Children born outside of this type of birth agreement contract would, the desires of either
    parent notwithstanding, be taken into the custody of a public agency and raised by the most caring and qualified professionals, applying the best possible practices, in well run and funded institutions set up expressly for that purpose.
    Contrasting with the life experience of unwanted kids in our current disfunctional system, very little if any stigma should, nor as it became established, would, accrue to one's being raised in an institution of the sort described above - rather it would, increasingly over time, simply be accepted as an indication that prior to one's birth one's parents were not in agreement about having a child - a lack of accord between them before one even entered the world and a part of their life stories rather than one's own - and thus a fact devoid of personal rejection or negative implications about one's intrinsic worth.


    If well implemented, the result would be far less of some things we'd be well rid of: welfare moms - with unhealthy, poorly raised kids born as income-generating tools, bad marriages, unhappy/unhealthy people, and the ancillary costs to our society..
  • jack
    by jack 10 months ago
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This impresses me as having been written in response to problems specific to a time and place - and being not only inadequate for, but antithetical to, what America, after 200 extra years of scientific learning and progress, now needs in order to preserve its secular rights and freedoms.
    Though all religions pose problems for our societies, it's obvious that Islam is currently the most dangerous. I think the only sensible course of action is to enact laws which prevent the practices, by any and all religions, which infringe on the rights and freedoms we stand for. Then our countries can welcome some select immigrants, including Muslims, that we carefully vet and who agree to reject the parts of their religion that we will not abide. If they do not live up to their word, they should be legally prosecuted. In this way we can help some of those who are trapped into religions and practices they want to escape from, while we still remain strong and protect ourselves and the rights and freedoms that so many have worked and fought for. Also, we should move quickly to clean sources of energy and back out of our involvement in the middle east in every way except for maintaining diplomacy and building a strong and sophisticated intelligence network capable of taking out terrorist threats to our countries and citizens.
    In the meantime, I think we should set up, in conjunction with the EU and UN, temporary refugee centers - for carefully vetted genuine refugees only - somewhere outside europe and America. The need for sanctuary from danger does not imply the need for residence in the countries granting it.
  • jack
    by jack 10 months ago
    Ukraine


    I offer the following for your consideration and/or amusement.
    Shortly after Yanukovich abdicated his position and flew the coop and generic Russian guys started showing up in Crimea I began commenting on articles about the subject in The Economist. I thought then, and have the temerity to think still, that I had a better solution to the situation than letting things play out per usual.
    I wish I had saved my comments (and per your example in future I am going to, by way of a google document whenever I comment to a magazine, blog, etc)., but the jist of what I said is this.
    I prefaced my remarks by a prediction that both Russia, the new Kiev government and the West were going to look alternately belligerent, foolish, weak, indecisive and dangerous as the situation became more and more messy. I proposed avoiding this by doing the following:


    Russia, the new protester government in Kiev, the EU and America should jointly meet and come up with a proposal to allow the citizens of Ukraine to vote on whether to split the country into two independent nations along the Dnieper. Built into the proposal would be provisions for the free movement of goods and people across the new border for an extended period of time to allow for economic and political adjustments.
    Criticism of the idea was mostly limited to my supposed ignorance of the fact that much of Ukraine’s heavy industry lies in the eastern half of the country, but I hadn’t failed to consider that. Yes, there would be major economic adjustments, but what is worse about that hypothetical situation than the current one? While some Russophiles would happily hammer away on their new manhole covers bound for Moscow, meanwhile Kiev could lean to the West, and get assistance to plow ahead into the future. Eventually, the kleptocracy in Russia is going to look more and more pathetic. Even Germany (France managed it) could some day wake up to the benefits of clean nuclear power and begin to wean itself from Russia’s gas teat. In the meantime, there’s no particular reason that an independent East Ukraine would be more of a threat with regard to gas reductions to Europpe than obtains in the current, or former, situation.


    West Ukraine and East Ukraine, bordered by the Dnieper, a natural dividing line both physically and culturally, would each have its own Black Sea coast, and an eastern-leaning East Ukraine would have obviated the need for Crimea to secede. Also, West Ukraine’s Black Sea access would abut Moldova, providing a nice buffer between that tiny nation and East Ukraine/Crimea and perhaps someday encouraging its westernization. (ignoring problematic Transdnistria for the moment)


    Why would the West have liked this arrangement? It avoids all the confrontational stuff with Russia while not having much if any of a downside, and makes it much easier to help Kiev.

    Why would Russia have acquiesced to it? At the outset of this kerfuffle, Russia didn’t need or want to occupy Ukraine, or even East Ukraine. All it needed was the status quo, Ukraine as a pliable buffer state between Russia and the West, with an easily manipulated head of government. It could have had that with a new East Ukraine government.


    The protesters changed the existing equation, and rightly so, but on the other hand the protest government in Kiev needs to try to subdue and win the favor of the Russophiles in East Ukraine like they need a hole in the head. If they instead let East Ukraine form its own government and suck up to momma Russia, Kiev can then get on with the business of running West Ukraine and improve their lives much more quickly. In a few years they can build the type of economy they want, and the world will find, to the West’s pleasure, that East Ukraine will look progressively worse by comparison.
    In the meantime - importantly - there would have been no standoff between Russia and the West and its concomitant conflict and loss of life.


    But implementing this would have taken real leadership and statesmanship, instead of the usual politics as usual and gut level response to each day’s latest crisis.
  • jack
    by jack 10 months ago
    Migration Crisis Plan

    We should be fair about our analysis of the migrants. But one need not be a terrorist to be unhelpful, expensive, disruptive, destabilizing and detrimental to European culture - the most common Mideastern/North African/Islamic values, mindset and lifestyle can be quite enough. Europeans are well within their rights to decide which, if any, foreign citizens without proper documentation they want to allow entry into their countries. Although analysis of the situation is right and necessary, the top priority right now should be for the EU and UN to implement a system for immediate transport of all people who show up uninvited on Europe's doorstep to a faraway place, fingerprinting, photographing and identifying them, quickly transporting economic migrants back home, and humanely detaining and caring for refugees. The processing and sanctuary center should have a temperate climate, be far enough away from Europe and migrants’ places of origin so that leakage in and out is prevented, and a place with enough space and stability that control can be maintained without political problems and where compensatory agreements can be attractive to the host. Large South American countries come to mind as possibilities. The refugees would not be allowed to melt into the country’s native population and infrastructure: the intention is to provide sanctuary for those who need it, not to provide 'a better life' or to victimize the host country economically or culturally.. Implementation of this system would be cost-shared among all signatory countries and would eliminate the infighting and giant mess we currently see. Economies of scale would keep the cost down, and once the system was understood, migrant numbers would decrease dramatically - to the benefit of Europe (and in some ways the migrants themselves) and the detriment of smugglers.
    Perhaps one of the most important benefits, although intangible and difficult to measure, would be the restoration of confidence in Europe's citizens that their government is performing its function, has not abrogated its responsibility to them, and that their laws have meaning.
    With this ethically sound, effective and feasible system implemented, all other good and helpful actions in regard to any of these people that may be decided by any country’s citizens would still be possible.
    Leaders - why wait? The costs of delay are enormous.
  • Joanna V Behan
    by Joanna V Behan 1 year ago
    Using and employing the groups for the humanity and for the social welfare. The manners of the groups are entailed for the fantastic and with help me write a paper in this quantum of the goodness of the incentives and for prolonged trends of humanity.