THS 2120!

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You may not explicitly say that 'they have to be stopped'. But do consider that the protection of religions seems to at least partially be intertwined with the assumption that when a person says "I believe YHWH is the best deity" this is an earnest deeply-held belief that entitles a person to some special protections, as opposed to "I believe chocolate ice-cream is best", which does not (because it's considered a belief not as deeply-held).

That is not "protecting" religious practice. It is _empowering_ it with rights not given to non-religions.

That's not only dubious in my eyes it's viewed as a very slippery slope in US law generally. See some of the commentary on yesterday's bakery case that the Supreme Court decided. Apparently, the main reason that the Court ruled the way it did was that the original forum the case was heard in was not neutral towards the baker's religion. Rather it was actively hostile. Simple neutrality may have avoided SCOTUS' problems with the case.

Also, note that if a lower court had been actively hostile to one party's ethnicity or gender or a similar factor the case would not be likely to have gotten as far as it did.

So no, I wouldn't give special rights to religious belief and this is one area where i may not be out of the local mainstream.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

That is not "protecting" religious practice. It is _empowering_ it with rights not given to non-religions.

That's not only dubious in my eyes it's viewed as a very slippery slope in US law generally. See some of the commentary on yesterday's bakery case that the Supreme Court decided. Apparently, the main reason that the Court ruled the way it did was that the original forum the case was heard in was not neutral towards the baker's religion. Rather it was actively hostile. Simple neutrality may have avoided SCOTUS' problems with the case.

Also, note that if a lower court had been actively hostile to one party's ethnicity or gender or a similar factor the case would not be likely to have gotten as far as it did.

So no, I wouldn't give special rights to religious belief and this is one area where i may not be out of the local mainstream.

That's a rather charged example of protections/empowerment (really, where the line between two is will be something that is disagreed about by different people). I'm talking about stuff like Jains or some subsets of Orthodox Judaism etc. being protected from conscription either completely or by allowing them to serve in non-military roles, whereas people who want to avoid conscription/serve their years as a medic instead 'just because' don't have their preferences protected as much. Or it being very criminal to discriminate based on people's religious beliefs but totally legal to do so based on political beliefs, allegiance on the Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate etc.

It seems a commonly held and self-evident to large parts of humanity thing that religion is and should be a protected class, while, say, musical preferences and other less 'deep' beliefs are not.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

TI'm talking about stuff like Jains or some subsets of Orthodox Judaism etc. being protected from conscription either completely or by allowing them to serve in non-military roles, whereas people who want to avoid conscription/serve their years as a medic instead 'just because' don't have their preferences protected as much.

We don't have any recent law about conscription. That ended in the US in 1975 and I'm not sure off the of of my head how the Ali case ended. There may not have been a special exception for religion earlier though.

Generally though giving religion anything more than a strictly neutral status risks running in to our "no Establishment" clause.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

We don't have any recent law about conscription. That ended in the US in 1975 and I'm not sure off the of of my head how the Ali case ended. There may not have been a special exception for religion earlier though.

Generally though giving religion anything more than a strictly neutral status risks running in to our "no Establishment" clause.

Modern USA is basically a bad example for discussing conscription laws because it has not seen enemy boots stepping on its soil for a long, long time, and seems to believe that it won't need to consider such a scenario ever again. That tends to obscure who is and isn't protected from conscription (and how much). Still, even USA does seem to have the concept of protected classes as distinct from non-protected ones.

[ericthered]

The thing about the rules in toxic memes that rubs me wrong is how easy it is to obtain a "vector". Ethos is everything in a memeplex. A troll on youtube has all the credibility of a troll on youtube. A noted talk show host has great influence over his audience, but will struggle to influence opinions in a non-overlapping sphere. Webcomic artists. Youtubers. Authors. Journalists. Protesters. Preachers. Forumites. Film Directors. Graphic designers. And the folks we talk with.

I think that's the real obstacle to memetics. You can't just buy your way into a position of ethos in a memplex. You've got to build up that ethos. I could see memetics as the scientific way of building up an ethos in a memeplex, but that's really not what's described in the memetic engineering ruleset.

As for whether or not these folks can actually influence what people believe, they can certainly effect what people say they believe. And if you only have a bunch of people saying they believe something because they believe the folks around them believe something, welcome to the gem that is civilization.

[Astromancer]

An important aspect of memetics, as written up for THS, is pedagogy. The idea of how the world would be changed if teaching children was basically improved really isn't even touched beyond simply saying memetics radically improves pedagogy.

If you did get a significant improvement in teaching all children, the effects on the arts and sciences would be vast. If nothing else the increase in the pool of practitioners would be a game changer.

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Modern USA is basically a bad example for discussing conscription laws because it has not seen enemy boots stepping on its soil for a long, long time, and seems to believe that it won't need to consider such a scenario ever again. That tends to obscure who is and isn't protected from conscription (and how much). Still, even USA does seem to have the concept of protected classes as distinct from non-protected ones.

As I recall from the days when I was nominally subject to it, you could be a "conscientious objector” on an entirely secular basis if you could convince the draft board you were sincere about it. This was in the US when compulsory draft registration was restarted. And I believe it is still in force for males 18-26. Theoretically enforced with fines and prison, but in practice with denial of student loans.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

So what new ideas in tech have come up since the THS setting came out that would give a revised setting a distinctive new flavor?

What about improving the uplifted animal templates to give IQs equal to humans? This is not to say that they would have human intelligence, just that they are much smarter than than their earlier versions.

Or material science improved by exotic compounds made by engineering them with dark matter.

Dark energy spacecraft engines. Sounds pretty woo-woo today, but in 2120--who knows?

[Flyndaran]

With time, regardless of exact intelligence, they may develop more unique cultures and greater demand for autonomy.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

With time, regardless of exact intelligence, they may develop more unique cultures and greater demand for autonomy.

If the intellect of uplifted animals is truely unique and distinctive, would we truely understand what they desire? They might not have the words for their desires, needs, or aspirations.