Vote: Provisional Working Goal List

I said it in the other topic, that we need a list of goals, and I made a list that I think is a good list of provisional goals. I submit the following as a provisional working list for the goals of the CSCS project. Note that I weakened it twice- provisional, and working. In other words, it is by no means set, and very much open to debate and compromise. However, I am putting this most important of decisions up for a vote. The "Other" option is there because I like the idea of the other option, but it will not be counted as part of the vote, IE if the vote is 4 for, 3 against, and 2 other, I will consider it to have passed. The winner will be decided in 1 week.

The following is my proposal for our Provisional Working Goals List:

General Welfare to all Sentients at the present is set to an importance value of 1, with people outside the CSCS taking a relative importance of about .1. I say this because the CSCS should focus primarily on itself, because they can do the most for themselves, and less for others, thus to some degree effort to better others is less fruitful than effort to better oneself because it is possible that they repudiate those efforts.

Furthermore, there is a relative importance based on time, because given more time, there will be more time and hopefully (with continuing progress) more ability to deal with the problem.

The Relative importance of General Welfare to all Sentients at any given point in the future can by found by the equation:

RI=25/(t+25)

Where RI is Relative importance and t is time in the future in years. Basically the point of this equation is that RI is 1 right now, and will halve every 25 years.

Then there is having an intelligent society, which I will denote a present-relative importance of .5, and .05 for the rest of the world, and then freedoms, which I will denote .25 and .025 respectively. Both are subject to the same equation of change over time.

Mike- I see that you've been online on this forum in the last 24 hours. As the admin and creator of this forum, you have some duty to keep it from dying of inactivity. Why didn't you post, or at least vote?

2 days left in voting, and still only one vote, that being mine.

C'mon guys, even an "other" vote is better than nothing.

Hehe, sorry Redsand. The problem is that we really need waaay more members here if these ideas are to carry any weight. You can't have a democracy with only 3 members. Perhaps we ought to concentrate on ideas for getting more members rather than ideas which, although they may have great philosophical value, have little chance of affecting the real-world.

- Mike

It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. While we do need more members, I don't think that they're going to stay, or even come in the first place, if we have nothing going on, and are just bickering.

If this passes (and according to the vote [singular], it did), we have something to rally around, a general statement of how things work, some chalk for the tabula rasa if you will. We now have a provisional working list of values. It is still very much open to revision, but we have something, and that's important.

Furthermore, I would argue that not only is democracy possible with 3 members, it's easiest- but yes, we do need more people. I think showing some real progress is a part of that, and we can work one the CS idea while at the same time working on outreach. I'll even add the CS forum to my sig at Newmars- but this was a free, secret ballot election with a clear result, and I think that it should be honored until, by another vote, we decide to change, if we do.

What, 1+ vote and 1- vote? If Mike voted other, that would be 1+, 1-, and 0. If Locksley returned, I imagine he'd vote 1-, so it would be 1+, 2-, and 0. Even if Mike voted 1+, it would still be a total of 0.

Which has know got me thinking about averaging democracy... after all, the best compromise is one where no-one is happy.

Unless it's on a topic of supreme importance, like basic human rights. I'm not going to change from being a minimalist, and Redsand shows no intention of changing from being a Utilitarian. Locksley's a Minimalist, and don't know what Mike is. Perhaps we should all take the four axis test?

Can't count those who don't vote, right? Decisions are made by those who show up.

If this is unacceptable, let's look for another compromise.