I would like to live in a renaissance world that was futuristic at the same time, sort of like it kept traditions, values, clothing and architecture from that era but mixed modern technology in with it. Kind of like Japan but to a greater degree.

>>25236
Star Trek, I guess.

>>25238
I get the architecture part, but what else is appealing about a feudal, church dominated society? I wouldn't describe nipland like that either.

>>25240
That era is kind of leaving feudalism(not that I actually have a problem with feudalism), I don't think the church ever had as much power as people assume either. Unless you mean the nature of religions control on society in general but I don't mind that because it encourages people to act in a more moral and upright way. Pretty much everything about it is appealing, it's hard to go into specifics.

Japan is more like it than the west is but no, it's not wholly like it hence why I said to a greater degree.

>>25241
>I don't think the church ever had as much power as people assume
On art/creative expression it certainly did. As with marriage. Violin makers around that time were hounded by them for being too independent. The Church questioned them and tried to get them to dip their violins in holy water to prove they weren't "satanic". Paganini's son couldn't find a place to bury him. That was already after the renaissance, during the enlightenment, when they had less power. People didn't actually treat each other better in day to day life. Aristrocats could act polite, lower class people didn't bother.

Would you be happier if your life was more restricted?

>>25242
The Church also tried to ban crossbows and tournaments, they had more soft power than they do know but there was little they could physically do to make force things to change.

>People didn't actually treat each other better in day to day life.

That would depend on what you define as being treated better. But I am not concerned whether I am treated better or not.

>Would you be happier if your life was more restricted?

It's not really more restrictive, well of course in some ways it is but in others it certainly isn't. In modern society what we wear, what we say, what we do and even what views we have are all restricted by various soft mechanisms. There are still a great amount of hard restrictions as well, it's nowhere near as easy to just do some random thing now. You want to travel? Well you need money, a passport and a visa. You want to join some random army and go on adventures? Well you need to be a citizen of that country and even then the chances of you getting in and seeing adventure are small. There are far more barriers that physically cannot be overcome or can only be overcome with great difficulty, even if I was a serf(which were dying out by then) and in a place that had the serf restriction laws, I could easily just leave even if it was against the law. Nobody could do that much to stop me, or at least not to the degree they can now.

>>25243
>in others it certainly isn't
Such as? In terms of artistic freedom and upward mobility, there is more freedom now then there was then. A renaissance society with free access to the internet wouldn't really be a renasissance society. I can't picture how that would work. I think you're preception of it is like a fantasy adventure. You could become anabaptist even now.

>>25244
There was more artistic freedom and upwards mobility than you assume. People were writing books on black magic and drawing all kinds of smut, many peasants rose to become quite well off as well. It's like today, upwards mobility is possible and happens but the majority don't move up. Internet would not change it from being a renaissance society.

>>25245
>writing books on black magic
From what I know, those were more scholarly than instructional.
>drawing all kinds of smut
For rich people before mass printing of images, which came qute a bit later. Also, on I Modi,
>also known as The Sixteen Pleasures
>The engravings were published by Marcantonio in 1524, and led to his imprisonment by Pope Clement VII and the destruction of all copies of the illustrations
>I Modi were then published a second time in 1527, now with the poems that have given them the traditional English title Aretino's Postures, making this the first time erotic text and images were combined, though the papacy once more seized all the copies it could find
>the censorship was so strict that no complete editions of the original printings have ever been found
>In the 17th century, certain Fellows of All Souls College, Oxford, engaged in the surreptitious printing at the University Press of Aretino's Postures, Aretino's De omnis Veneris schematibus and the indecent engravings after Giulio Romano. The Dean, Dr. John Fell, impounded the copper plates and threatened those involved with expulsion
Some more
>L'Ecole des Filles
>The author remains anonymous to this day, though a few suspected authors served light prison sentences for supposed authorship of the work

Post edited on 1st Feb 2020, 6:55pm

>>25246
Depends which one. King James the first's is scholarly/public awareness whilst strongly condemning it, others are wholly instructional.

>For rich people before mass printing of images, which came qute a bit later.

So it has nothing to do with creative freedom then does it, it has more to do with technology. There is quite a bit before that and in other contexts as well. Many churches even have vulgar carvings on them.


>Also, on I Modi,

Also on that.

>Romano was not prosecuted since—unlike Marcantonio—his images were not intended for public consumption.

It seems more to do with the audience. If you were to draw a hentai loli rape painting for your local football club I don't see that would go down well ether.

>>25247
>it has more to do with technology
Yeah, technology ultimately enables freedom of expression. It can be used to restrict people, but as long as technology exists and grows, greater freedom is inevitable.
>If you were to draw a hentai loli rape painting for your local football club I don't see that would go down well ether.
In my perfect world it would go down fine and there wouldn't be any local football club.

Post edited on 1st Feb 2020, 7:24pm

>>25248
>but as long as technology exists and grows, greater freedom is inevitable.

I don't know about that, particularly not in today's times.

>>25236
I like to imagine the afterworld is some place like YKK. There's not too much people and no one worries about anything, all it's decadent but since there's few people there's more than enough resources, also all the entertainment accumulated for centuries. So civilization without (too many) humans. I think what makes our wourld so shit is overpopulation and because of that "hell is in the others" makes us necessarily unhappy.

>>25236
>what would one in which you were happy look like?
>rule: has to be fundamentally the same universe
It wouldn't look like anything then, since such a thing doesn't exist. This place is a shithole precisely because of those fundamental rules. If you can't change the recipe, you can't change the dish that comes out. Though if pressed to choose one small possible change I'd take a world where I could get my hands on an experience machine and spend the rest of my days in blissful stupor of unreality.

>>25248
>as technology exists and grows, greater freedom is inevitable.
If that were true then we ought to be significantly qualitatively more free than our primitive ancestors, and this does not seem to me to be the case. True in quite a few measures we can be said to be more free. As the costs of doing and accessing many things have fallen away due to technology making our labors more efficient. But in many other areas technology through both necessity and rent-seeking serves to restrict our freedoms. Take surveillance for example, or bureaucratic coercion, or propaganda, or any other number of technologies which do nothing but strongly circumscribe our freedoms. These are features, not bugs. Technological society, especially higher-technological society must restrict freedom in order for it to function. The more complex a system, the less perturbations it can handle. So While natural restrictions on our freedom have somewhat dwindled, artificial restrictions have multiplied. Our newfound freedoms are also probably not commensurate with those we have lost. Technology has actually gradually eroded our capacity to freedom in order to perpetuate itself. This trend doesn't seem likely to change either, even as technology like automation make the system require fewer and fewer people to sustain itself it will only lead to a doctrine of double effect where the few freedoms people still possess become greater and greater risks to be curtailed all the more harshly.

>>25251
>If you can't change the recipe
You can change the recipe, just not the ingredients. Yeah, there's things an egg can't do, but there's many things it can. Do you think the laws of physics are the source of your unhappiness? You can't be happy unless those are changed?
>than our primitive ancestors
Who didn't live in a society. I don't really count pre-society type freedom.
>Take surveillance for example, or bureaucratic coercion, or propaganda
All temporary. Nations crumble, money runs out, people become disillusioned. The printing press still exists.
>do nothing but strongly circumscribe our freedoms
I don't think anything like that exists. Those are just ways of using technology. Anything technology does can be circumvented by other technology. Any attempt to restrict people will eventually fail. Technology might even make society obsolete if it allows people to be self-sufficient.

Post edited on 2nd Feb 2020, 5:53am

>>25251
>especially higher-technological society must restrict freedom in order for it to function. The more complex a system, the less perturbations it can handle
That reminds me almost exactly of Kaczynski's view on this.

>The more complex a system, the less perturbations it can handle
I don't think this is true. More complex systems have plenty of safeguards. A few errors and rogue elements don't disrupt the larger system, which is compartmentalized. Simpler system can break very easily. Compare a human body to a single cell organism, or an addition program to a game.

What you all fail to realize is that regardless of time or place, the freedom of people to do abnormal things will always be restricted by normal people. Is is a fundamental aspect of civilization that outliers must not be allowed to roam freely within it, else they will disrupt social solidarity and encourage lifestyles and mindsets that do not benefit the system. It doesn't matter whether they do it with religious spooks or technologically advanced hyper-mob rule. An abnormal person in a normal society will never be allowed to be free, not even to entertain himself with his imagination. We just were not made for this life.

I've lately been coming to peace with this myself, I don't know where I would be able to function and fully integrate but it's certainly not here. I have my fun here in this world sometimes, good enough.

>>25257
Would you feel comfortable, then, in a world in which what you deem to be normal is considered normal? Or do you think in a practical setting there'd be a case of "too many cooks" with the same ideals that don't work larger-scale?

>>25257
You could live a world without human civilization. I think once technology advances enough, human interaction of any kind will become obsolete. Whatever people are left will be self-sufficent.

One where I'm not in tons of debt and/or have to worry about money all the time. Where I don't have to sell my entire waking life just to make ends meet.

>>25255
Yes me too and I agree with it too.

>It can't be 2d
>the fundamental construction of the universe has to stay the same
nonexistant and if that can't be let me become nothing myself leave me out of it sadistic bastards

A world where there are no illnesses.
A world where intelligence dominates. Greater literature, like Nabokov, is mandatory. No place for platitudes - such rooms of blankness are replaced by memories. No set phrases, no emojis, but original codes of beauty.
A world where little girls do not grow up.

There isn't much to improve. The century doesn't matter much, people in power have all the capabilities to act upon their desires. Everything is in decay, and art captures the moment of immortality.

A world where I'm the only person, not necessarily everyone is me physically but mentally I mean. Nothing would get done but I would be happy by myself

A world where I can progress, not limited by physical health issues nor mental health issues.

If I could continue surpassing myself day after day, with close loving friends and moreorless a set script for life rather than the confusing nothingness adulthood feels like.

I used to think people were either 'good' or 'bad' at things, but the weight that I could've been good on a different path, rather than a complete failure disaster hurts.

It really feels like straying off a different path makes me further distanced from society on the normal path. A different path would be fine if I had the talents to be independent.

>>25451
Same

A world where the atrocities and tragedies of the past and present never happened. The personal ones (abuse), societal ones (war), environmental ones (extinction), and historical ones (lost knowledge).

Societies would be organized in a way that minimizes poverty, exploitation, harm, and burdensome work. I have no idea what this would look like.

For my personal preference of what the world would look like, there would be a preservation of all kinds of cultures and lifestyles. There would be more places where traditional hunter-gatherer societies (like the uncontacted Amazonian tribes) would exist without fear of being encroached on.

There would be no lost knowledge and no dead languages. There would be pockets of the world that live like the ancient Romans or the cultures of the golden era of medieval Islam. (Minus the parts that require harm/exploitation/etc like slavery and mutilations of children.) Most would be accepting of outsiders to various degrees.

With that many cultures, I think we would all have a better chance at finding a place where we could live happier lives, no matter how reclusive we are.

>>26818
Sounds like a theme park.

>>26821
You're right, it does. But in this case the attractions would have the breadth and depth of real cultures, and they would produce unique art.

I am convinced that anyone who takes Plato's tripartate division of the soul (Intellect, spirited and appetitive, with intellect being at the top of the hierachy and therefore deserving to rule, and appetitive at the bottom and therefore deserving to be ruled) seriously will be a more interesting type of person. Imagine an entire society full of this type of person. The individual human would be finally become interesting instead of merely being an aggregate of an interesting species.

>>26826
That view tends to sell non-human animals short. Crows, dolphins and chimps are among those smart enough to have what I'd call intellect, but that intellect doesn't conflict with their base instincts. Instead their intellect aids them in pursuing what they instinctual desire. Humans seem more dysfunctional to me. Why does one have to "rule" over the other?

Post edited on 27th Oct 2021, 6:31pm

>>26826
Even if they don't articulate it quite like that I would say that most people would take that seriously. People generally want the people in control to be intellectual and to actually know what they are doing rather than be corrupt and only there to fill their wants.

>>25236
http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html
i want this, its not a direct answer but a worthwhile read. it paints the most beautiful picture of what the world should be.

>>26890
Bob: Doug, recently you made some interesting comments. I was wondering if you could expand on them a bit, in private...

Doug: Sure, Bob. What comments?

B: You were talking about alien contact. You said if aliens were to contact us, they might try online before revealing themselves in person. Why do you think so?

D: Well, I have a number of reasons. Before that, you have to assume there really are aliens, they're aware of our existence, they have the means to contact us relatively soon, and they're interested in doing so. You could argue against all of these assumptions, but since you’re asking, I'm guessing you’re open-minded enough to accept them for the sake of argument...


B: Sure. Go on...

D: We've already discussed various means of contact that *may* be occurring already. UFO sightings for instance, which sometimes have multiple witnesses. There's also abductions.

All of these are easy to deny though. Authority figures can easily discredit reports of contact. It seems no one can provide hard physical evidence, and it’s easy to come up with other explanations most people will readily accept: weather balloons, secret military projects, mental illness, etc. Unless you've experienced it yourself, you can't say for sure contact has been made.

There are only two possible explanations for this: (1) one or more of our assumptions are wrong, (2) for some reason, direct, provable contact is not allowed yet.

Assuming the latter is correct, that leaves us with the question: Why is provable contact not allowed? The simplest answer is: they're waiting for the right time, and that hasn’t happened yet. They are going to continue with the deniable contacts until they decide that we’re ready. Whatever that means.

Does all this seem reasonable? If you’ve been following these discussions for a while, you're probably familiar with all these arguments.

Post edited on 13th Nov 2021, 8:32pm

>>26893
ET ... shitpost home...