This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Truth.
i've known people who simply believe that the world is screwed up, but there is nothing they can do about it, so they choose to not do anything about it.
if all truths are known, would it make the world a better place to live? i can think not.
my reasoning behind this is control.
control is needed, for what if someone were to be able to look up how to create a weapon using the truth available that could hurt a lot of people?
then again, i suppose it is about a level of control.
already, truth is beginning to become very much apart of society, where upon a lot of things are known that some people dislike very much. especially for those that are in power.
those that are in power, wish to keep secrets because not only could it hurt their reputation and has the ability to take away their power, but it also has the ability to cause chaos.
in a world where those who are in power dislike uncontrolled change, truth seems to be the enemy, atleast to an extent. this means that without change, accepting what is universally deemed unacceptable amongst most people, is actually acceptable for those in power because of their fear of change.
considering that with the advent of technology a lot of truth will be known in the coming decades, how much of it should be known, and why?
Scott Armstrong 50+
This is why open communication has to happen. That way, no one person or group can dictate what is censored and what is not.
Like anything, knowledge can be good or bad but the minute we start censoring it "just in case" it might make problems or because we think we are doing it for "their own good", we start down a dangerous path.
My thoughts are that we are at a crossroads as far as the internet, social networking and open communication are concerned.
We will either see open communication flourish which will have a enormous changing effect on many things, or we will see the same old attitudes attempt to lock it down for the purposes of control.
This includes concepts like Intellectual Property and copyright issues as well as political control by governments.
griffin tucker 10+
there are limits for what should be censored, and with the advent of censorship by the australian government to block sites via the two largest australian isp's, it is becoming more and more a topic of discussion.
complexity can be become much more simple if it is discussed, in my belief. if people are educated on ethics matters without too much (or any) constraint, the evolvement of communication can become much more humanised, in my opinion, and is already apparent with both the release of information through debatable legal means and via illegal means (as seen in recent days.)
without guidance or clear intentions, both individuals and different governments can feel threatened, a motivational construct of fear becomes increasingly apparent, and positive constructive criticism becomes less likely in the process.
on the topic of individuals feeling threatened, a revolt ensues by those who do not wish to feel threatened. chaos then seemingly ensues, and the same methods of fear that were imposed on the individuals becomes apparent for those who applied the intentional or unintentional fear to begin with.
seemingly unorganised groups of individuals who wish to apply back the said fear that was imposed on them could actually be more constructive, but education on how to do so is not only hard to come by, but seemingly hidden. so, constructive debate is very limited in scope toward those who may have important points to make, there-by making true constructive critcism even more difficult to attain.
on the other side of the argument, censorship is about protection, not only protection for the government, but also protection amongst the individuals themselves. censoring certain types of information could actually prevent an individual, for instance, from being led astray which could cause damage to the fabric of society.
Judge Pau 50+
Why is it important to know the truth ?
What makes people believe we are here to reveal the truth ?
Maybe we're here simply to "live" ?
Live ... solve problem when we are trying to live better. Let truth be seek out on "need to be happy" bases.
griffin tucker 10+
i believe if any government is more open about possibilities that can occur without imposing fear upon their people (atleast, not too much fear) then there is more chance for people to create advancements in culture, technology, and other areas regarding the social spectrum.
alas, this is just the culture i was raised to believe in.
control is obviously fundamental in today's society in any place in the world, it works better in some places than others, and in different styles. those in power wish to control the people to an extent for the benefit of the people, where it would cause the least amount of harm for the masses to live relatively happily.
when there is only so much of the resources to go around, it seems to be in any place in the world that more resources for the highly skilled mean a more rapid and/or accurate development, but only if they are controlled correctly, otherwise the risk of waste is higher.
i agree that we are indeed here to live, but not necessarily simply, because as technology evolves, so does the complexity of shared information, which can be both dangerous and healthy, depending on what information is shared. this applies to any place in the world.
Judge Pau 50+
I imply neither censorship nor apatheism.
I demand necessity.
The risk of looking for the truth without a clear motive/goal/purpose is not just waste resources.
The debate over whether to give a choice to an AI or not ... whether to continue the space program or not .....should we provide privacy on the internet or not... are all to me sample of pseudo problem. All have significant impact on people but they are, to me, more an adventure and or indulgence than a necessity.
griffin tucker 10+
edit: http://www.ted.com/conversations/2700/create_the_matrix_for_real.html
Judge Pau 50+
But there you go... it's a cool machine/idea but why ?
What for ?
What good do you expect to come out from that thing ?
Bare in mind, I didn't ask what it proves but what good/improvement will it bring ?
Many real life examples past and presence have show growing knowledge does not always translate as growing qualities.
griffin tucker 10+
i propose ideas along the lines of your thoughts.
some things are not necessarily of high natured quality, but i see the amount of control in the future to be nothing but that - controlled - and not necessarily by humans, but instead, a design of the future created by one, maybe two generations ahead of time without change, so, how can this be stopped? or, rather, with true freedom?