Need a political topic

So I'm a big philosophical, mathematical, scientific kinda guy, so writing about political issues kinda sucks since, IMO, they all fall into 3 categories:

1. We're human and thus it will never be resolved.

2. It's too far gone or is a catch 22 and we can't fix it.

3. It's based on opinion or contains unknown/unpredictable variables and thus doesn't have a right answer.

If it's not one of those, then it has a right answer that we've already found or we know how to find and is thus not an issue.

I'm fine at debating an issue if I have a designated side, the devil's advocate needs to be played, or ideas simply haven't been considered that need to be. But this is a one-sided paper expressing my opinion on a specific subject.

What the fuck should I write about?

Do you have no political beliefs? Have they given you no possible topics? A paper on government seems like it could have limitless potential.

Write a 9/11 truth paper.

Write about where the majority our money goes, and how it could be better spent or have a new system in place where people can elect where they want it to go.

Discuss how beneficial it could be for us to base political decisions on scientific understandings that deliver objective reasoning rather than subjective opinions which is prevalent in most political systems today. In other words, instead of making decisions, we arrive at them as a result of utilising the scientific method.

  On 8/29/2010 at 11:52 PM, chenGOD said:

Do you have no political beliefs? Have they given you no possible topics? A paper on government seems like it could have limitless potential.

I don't understand the hype of clashing political beliefs, honestly.

Abortion, for example. The whole debate really hinges on when "life" or "consciousness" "begins". And it doesn't ever "begin". There's no switch that gets flipped where it's like, "Oh, hey, now I'm alive." Or if there is, we currently have no way of knowing when. The real issue is, "Based on our national opinion, when do we want to legally say that a child is alive?" And that just means having the information presented to everyone and having them vote on it. Done. The verdict you voted on didn't win? Tough. That's part of living under a "democratic" government. That's it until research provides more information if it's even possible, at which point it can be reconsidered.

write a paper calling for an end to military buildup, and say that we should use the funds to build a giant statue of alf pissing on texas.

  On 8/30/2010 at 12:59 AM, Bread said:

Discuss how beneficial it could be for us to base political decisions on scientific understandings that deliver objective reasoning rather than subjective opinions which is prevalent in most political systems today. In other words, instead of making decisions, we arrive at them as a result of utilising the scientific method.

Science has yet to answer some questions though, and the way our governing systems are based often requires black and white instead of grey.

just because you're into philosophy math and science does not mean that you cannot be into politics. they can all be viewed from a political perspective.

math: huge issue up here in canada at the moment is whether or not to do a long-form census. basically do we need to keep statistics of everything about each citizen to see trends and project them into the future. political parties are arguing over this right now.

science/philosophy: stem cell research. should we use certain stem cells to advance medicine? is it immoral?

philosophy/science: genetic engineering. should humans take an active role in creating who we are by genetically altering ourselves with the distinct intention of some gain. is it immoral?

this is fun as shit dude!

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:05 AM, disparaissant said:

write a paper calling for an end to military buildup, and say that we should use the funds to build a giant statue of alf pissing on texas.

You got my vote

Uhhhg. So many of the issues I keep considering boil down to that fact that capitalism is bullshit and fucks people.

  On 8/29/2010 at 11:41 PM, wahrk said:

So I'm a big philosophical, mathematical, scientific kinda guy, so writing about political issues kinda sucks since, IMO, they all fall into 3 categories:

 

1. We're human and thus it will never be resolved.

2. It's too far gone or is a catch 22 and we can't fix it.

3. It's based on opinion or contains unknown/unpredictable variables and thus doesn't have a right answer.

 

If it's not one of those, then it has a right answer that we've already found or we know how to find and is thus not an issue.

 

I'm fine at debating an issue if I have a designated side, the devil's advocate needs to be played, or ideas simply haven't been considered that need to be. But this is a one-sided paper expressing my opinion on a specific subject.

 

What the fuck should I write about?

Why not write about this? Like maybe try to prove the thesis based on several examples. Or discuss the effect your thesis has or should have on modern politics/political agendas etc.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:11 AM, Franklin said:

just because you're into philosophy math and science does not mean that you cannot be into politics. they can all be viewed from a political perspective.

 

math: huge issue up here in canada at the moment is whether or not to do a long-form census. basically do we need to keep statistics of everything about each citizen to see trends and project them into the future. political parties are arguing over this right now.

 

science/philosophy: stem cell research. should we use certain stem cells to advance medicine? is it immoral?

 

philosophy/science: genetic engineering. should humans take an active role in creating who we are by genetically altering ourselves with the distinct intention of some gain. is it immoral?

 

this is fun as shit dude!

But it doesn't matter. Unless there is a true correct answer, then it doesn't matter which side wins, as long as one side wins and the decided law is effectively implemented and enforced.

Moral issues don't have a correct answer, just different opinions. Debate it, lay out pros and cons, vote, and you're done. If it turns out that in hindsight the winning decision was the best decision for the country, bummer. The losers get to say, "I told you so." and the law gets changed.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:12 AM, dese manz hatin said:

  On 8/29/2010 at 11:41 PM, wahrk said:

So I'm a big philosophical, mathematical, scientific kinda guy, so writing about political issues kinda sucks since, IMO, they all fall into 3 categories:

 

1. We're human and thus it will never be resolved.

2. It's too far gone or is a catch 22 and we can't fix it.

3. It's based on opinion or contains unknown/unpredictable variables and thus doesn't have a right answer.

 

If it's not one of those, then it has a right answer that we've already found or we know how to find and is thus not an issue.

 

I'm fine at debating an issue if I have a designated side, the devil's advocate needs to be played, or ideas simply haven't been considered that need to be. But this is a one-sided paper expressing my opinion on a specific subject.

 

What the fuck should I write about?

Why not write about this? Like maybe try to prove the thesis based on several examples. Or discuss the effect your thesis has or should have on modern politics/political agendas etc.

I've been leaning towards doing that, and as this thread goes on, it looks like that's what I'm gonna do.

  On 8/29/2010 at 11:41 PM, wahrk said:

So I'm a big philosophical, mathematical, scientific kinda guy, so writing about political issues kinda sucks since, IMO, they all fall into 3 categories:

 

1. We're human and thus it will never be resolved.

2. It's too far gone or is a catch 22 and we can't fix it.

3. It's based on opinion or contains unknown/unpredictable variables and thus doesn't have a right answer.

 

If it's not one of those, then it has a right answer that we've already found or we know how to find and is thus not an issue.

 

I'm fine at debating an issue if I have a designated side, the devil's advocate needs to be played, or ideas simply haven't been considered that need to be. But this is a one-sided paper expressing my opinion on a specific subject.

 

What the fuck should I write about?

Why not right about politcs it self the fact that it does not change much when ither side of the room is voted in, Make a point that we should all work together

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:06 AM, wahrk said:

  On 8/30/2010 at 12:59 AM, Bread said:

Discuss how beneficial it could be for us to base political decisions on scientific understandings that deliver objective reasoning rather than subjective opinions which is prevalent in most political systems today. In other words, instead of making decisions, we arrive at them as a result of utilising the scientific method.

 

Science has yet to answer some questions though, and the way our governing systems are based often requires black and white instead of grey.

I'd say Politics is much more of a grey area than science --

1. Science is based on empirical, researched understandings. Of course there are many theories out there, but the ones that are tested with reliable results can be put forward on a societal level

2. Politics has no objective decision making process at all -- for it is impossible to be objective when there are various political corruptions such as bribes, campaign funding, cash-for-honours (applicable to UK), we've had the MPs expenses scandal in the UK just recently etc.. and when you have corporations giving money to you for your leadership campaign, inevitably you will owe them favours when you get into office. Why all of this grey noise? This isn't a reliable process, put in place for the well being of the public, is it?

Science is the best tool we know, as Carl Sagan once said.

It's a candle in the dark.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:11 AM, Franklin said:

science/philosophy: stem cell research. should we use certain stem cells to advance medicine? is it immoral

Remember that morals are subjective understandings, usually projected by groups in society who only stand for one side of the argument, and don't generally take a look at all the evidence on the table.

Pro-life groups still make me laugh - as Bill Hicks stated, if your pro-life, you'd be out there attempting to prevent wars and any kind of loss of human life. Of course, most people who are 'pro-life' don't go as far as this, which reveals how committed they really are to the cause.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:24 AM, Bread said:

I'd say Politics is much more of a grey area than science --

1. Science is based on empirical, researched understandings. Of course there are many theories out there, but the ones that are tested with reliable results can be put forward on a societal level

2. Politics has no objective decision making process at all -- for it is impossible to be objective when there are various political corruptions such as bribes, campaign funding, cash-for-honours (applicable to UK), we've had the MPs expenses scandal in the UK just recently etc.. and when you have corporations giving money to you for your leadership campaign, inevitably you will owe them favours when you get into office. Why all of this grey noise? This isn't a reliable process, put in place for the well being of the public, is it?

 

Science is the best tool we know, as Carl Sagan once said.

It's a candle in the dark.

I should have been more specific when I said "black and white instead of grey". What I meant was basically digital vs analog (lol for saying that with zero relation to audio equipment on this forum). With abortion, the way our law is set up, you have to have a set time when the child is declared alive, before which it is not alive. A or B. 0 or 1. The actual process, however, is continuous and analog. It's a line with an infinite set of possible points along it from A to B.

Also, the thing with government is that there is no "best" type of government. At least not one we've settled on yet. The same goes for "best" laws. That being the case, we have to decide as a country what we want as far as a balance between freedom and order.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:02 AM, wahrk said:

Abortion, for example.

Politics are not about bullshit abortions.

Politics are about steeling your money, telling you that it is for fighting abortion or fighting for your right to abortion, and going away with it.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:42 AM, 4d0lf said:

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:02 AM, wahrk said:

Abortion, for example.

Politics are not about bullshit abortions.

Politics are about steeling your money, telling you that it is for fighting abortion or fighting for your right to abortion, and going away with it.

Theft is about stealing your money.

Capitalism is taking your money (though not outright stealing it).

Politics are about people and government, which is all about acting together as a body of people instead of as individuals.

stem cell research sounds like a good idea. Scientific, and political.

Like why is the US still so far behind in research, and why isn't it like number 1 priority right now since so much good can come from stem cells, and it's very crucial for the future of science/medicine.

You could go off on W not wanting anything to do with them. There's a whole political paper right there. But there's certainly better aspects to focus on.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:37 AM, wahrk said:

I should have been more specific when I said "black and white instead of grey". What I meant was basically digital vs analog (lol for saying that with zero relation to audio equipment on this forum). With abortion, the way our law is set up, you have to have a set time when the child is declared alive, before which it is not alive. A or B. 0 or 1. The actual process, however, is continuous and analog. It's a line with an infinite set of possible points along it from A to B.

 

Also, the thing with government is that there is no "best" type of government. At least not one we've settled on yet. The same goes for "best" laws. That being the case, we have to decide as a country what we want as far as a balance between freedom and order.

Sorry I don't understand your analog vs digital analogy.

Really, a progressive society would look to slowly erase the need for 'laws' in society. Think about it -- a lot of the laws around the world, for example; highway laws, can easily be resolved by using technology:

1. Law 1 - don't drink and drive

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: a computer inside the vehicle measures if the car is oscillating too much according to the navigation of the road, therefore the computer will automatically take over the vehicle or possibly slow it down to prevent any harm done

2. Law 2 - slow down; slippery road when wet

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: the road can be made from a material which is water resistant (sorry, I'm no materials scientist but I have seen various materials that resist water on hard surfaces -- I can't see why we wouldn't be able to implement this with current technologies)

3. Law 3 - speed limits

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: a road that reacts electronically, or even magnetically, with the vehicle so that speed can be controlled via a computer system. The road could even be made up of solar panels, so that it can harness solar power.

You see my point with many useless laws. Think about other areas where certain laws can be eradicated by using technology. The above 3 are just from the top of my head.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:53 AM, Bread said:

Sorry I don't understand your analog vs digital analogy.

Really, a progressive society would look to slowly erase the need for 'laws' in society. Think about it -- a lot of the laws around the world, for example; highway laws, can easily be resolved by using technology:

1. Law 1 - don't drink and drive

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: a computer inside the vehicle measures if the car is oscillating too much according to the navigation of the road, therefore the computer will automatically take over the vehicle or possibly slow it down to prevent any harm done

 

2. Law 2 - slow down; slippery road when wet

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: the road can be made from a material which is water resistant (sorry, I'm no materials scientist but I have seen various materials that resist water on hard surfaces -- I can't see why we wouldn't be able to implement this with current technologies)

 

3. Law 3 - speed limits

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: a road that reacts electronically, or even magnetically, with the vehicle so that speed can be controlled via a computer system. The road could even be made up of solar panels, so that it can harness solar power.

 

You see my point with many useless laws. Think about other areas where certain laws can be eradicated by using technology. The above 3 are just from the top of my head.

Abortion is a Schrodinger's cat situation anyway.

Better solution for drinking and driving: eliminate driving. But that has just as many implications for management as your suggestions.

Technology is not the solution. Until we can create basically create new self-sustaining, self-replicating, sentient, task-specific beings, technology will not have a shot at being the answer, and honestly, in my opinion, it will never be the answer. Knowledge is the answer. Technology is a huge part of why our world is fucked up right now in the first place. Technology is a tool, not a crutch.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:51 AM, Brandi_B said:

stem cell research sounds like a good idea. Scientific, and political.

 

Like why is the US still so far behind in research, and why isn't it like number 1 priority right now since so much good can come from stem cells, and it's very crucial for the future of science/medicine.

 

You could go off on W not wanting anything to do with them. There's a whole political paper right there. But there's certainly better aspects to focus on.

Honestly, I think it's partially the media that's directing our attention elsewhere and partially the general population who's too dumb to understand it.

Solution to the first:

no capitalism to drive media agencies to lie to make more money

Solution to the second:

  On 8/30/2010 at 2:03 AM, wahrk said:

Better solution for drinking and driving: eliminate driving. But that has just as many implications for management as your suggestions.

 

Technology is not the solution. Until we can create basically create new self-sustaining, self-replicating, sentient, task-specific beings, technology will not have a shot at being the answer, and honestly, in my opinion, it will never be the answer. Knowledge is the answer. Technology is a huge part of why our world is fucked up right now in the first place. Technology is a tool, not a crutch.

I agree with the elimination of driving -- we have the technology to utilise mag-lev train technologies (magnetically levitated train systems) which could go underground, worldwide, connecting from country to country. High speed, efficient public transport is a viable answer. Just think of the amount of waste produced by environmentally detrimental cars that use fossil fuels. The very fact that cars sit there in parking lots all day until you need to use it when you finish work just goes to show how wasteful cars can be -- instead of that car waiting to be used, another person some where in the world needs to get some where. Any way, I'll stop there regarding transportation issues.

I wouldn't say technology is the solution -- it is a solution towards many varying problems in the world. I don't see how you can dispute what I mentioned previously regarding the 3 types of common laws I proposed technological solutions for. Why do we have to wait until we can use "self-replicating" technologies in order to solve certain problems?

How do you clean yourself in the morning? Do you use a hot water system (aka technology) to solve your personal hygiene? How do you get to work, to school or to pick up your groceries? Technology of course. What are you using to communicate with me right now? Again, it's technology. It's very ignorant to disregard technology completely as unreliable solutions to many problems. You're right, technology is merely a tool -- we can use it to build bombs, or it can be used to construct shelter for the poor. You say that technology is what's "fucking things up", yet you contradict yourself by acknowledging it's only a tool.. which means that if technology is used for inciting problems, it's human behaviour that has brought that about -- and that's a whole other topic.

  On 8/30/2010 at 2:18 AM, Bread said:

I wouldn't say technology is the solution -- it is a solution towards many varying problems in the world. I don't see how you can dispute what I mentioned previously regarding the 3 types of common laws I proposed technological solutions for. Why do we have to wait until we can use "self-replicating" technologies in order to solve certain problems?

 

How do you clean yourself in the morning? Do you use a hot water system (aka technology) to solve your personal hygiene? How do you get to work, to school or to pick up your groceries? Technology of course. What are you using to communicate with me right now? Again, it's technology. It's very ignorant to disregard technology completely as unreliable solutions to many problems. You're right, technology is merely a tool -- we can use it to build bombs, or it can be used to construct shelter for the poor. You say that technology is what's "fucking things up", yet you contradict yourself by acknowledging it's only a tool.. which means that if technology is used for inciting problems, it's human behaviour that has brought that about -- and that's a whole other topic.

The self-replication comes from larger scale view of sustainable systems. First, you have a unit that you build that you have to fix if it breaks and replace if something new is created. Next, you have a unit that fixes itself and upgrades itself when needed. Then you have the system of units that can maintain itself and create new units when necessary. For example, a new highway is needed. We need new highway control units for that highway, so it creates them and distributes them. This is, of course, after the road management system builds the new highway.

The ideal technological future is one where we don't have to do as little as possible.

And this is, of course, a horrifying future, because if there is a flaw in the initial world management system we designed, then our whole world will crumble.

There's actually a great story about such a future called The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster.

I guess I will correct a previous statement of mine. Knowledge is not the answer. Understanding is. If we can promote a new inherent understanding of the world in our species, then we can progress. Currently, technology is not progress. Of course, this is really a topic for another thread.