Amir,

> Biiig mistake. You would deny cause and effect.
>
> Software is a very personal and creative endeavour. From the encryption
> button, how I handle users data, shape their behaviour or what colours I
> use are shaping the way users interact and perceive my software. And
> also helps shape their values by shaping their behaviour.
>
> Sure, but to a degree. I would consider that you are creating a new space
of possibilities,
but you still can't control the end user who acts with his/her moral
compass. As you know, the use of encryption technologies
can facilitate networks for human trafficking or subvert a totalitarian
government.

Once our ideas are in the wild we have little control over inputs or those
with the ability to hack tech to serve new purposes.
Which isn't a big deal if the technology has only local impact, but humans
are becoming ever more technologically sophisticated in a global network
while still lacking the basic tenets required for a healthy civilization.
The collapse of Rome effected the Roman empire, the collapse in the modern
era affects the global ecosystem, this threatens the biosphere. The long
term effects of technology are essentially unpredictable and logically
result in an amplification of good and evil.

The possibility to make our species extinct via bio-terrorism is already a
reality. Is their no point in which it would probably
behoove us to stop 'progress' so we can address the more pressing issues?
As much as I desire to create a desktop DNA printer, it is probably best to
not open pandoras box -- despite the great good that could come of it.

This is not the totality of my thread of thought.
>
> For instance: I support cooperatives. I can build a tool to enable
> people to better manage and create cooperatives.
>
> We can drive towards our goal with a powerful tool. But without
> knowledge of philosophy and ethics, you end up with chumps making toys
> for iphones.
>

Good, tools in the hands of morally sophisticated individuals can bring
much good..but technology is still amoral.
Its the two edged sword that will persist in this life and the next. I
consider that is why only those who submit to the will
of God will be allowed to eternally progress i.e. to assimilate all the
attributes of God -- those who don't will be damned (an eternal hold on
progression).

How do you determine which philosophy or ethic is optimal?

>
> Corruption is the most interesting topic.
> So far I haven't had much success, and it seems a multi-party democracy
> and single-party state is rather superfluous in difference when looking
> at actual studies.
> The one thing they trump though is transparency, and also if we can
> devolve power maybe people will have more say to effect and solve these
> problems.
> Unfortunately people don't want to be free nor responsible to run their
> lives, and that is a cultural thing that requires education to bring
> people up towards that goal.
>

Their are certainly better was of governing, but it requires an aptitude of
the people.

As an example lets look at polar bears. Currently they are dying of
starvation due to an inability to hunt seals because of melting polar sea
ice. Another effect of the melting ice is that the walrus no longer roost
on the sea ice and are forced to roost inland.
Therefore polar bears should eat walrus..problem is polar bears don't work
together and a walrus is far too powerful for a single bear. If the polar
bears evolves to work together they could thrive, if they don't they die.

If humans overcome their limitations by submitting to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ we could thrive and if not we die, but we can't assume we can pursue
a destructive track and expect a different result.

If we behaved like an ant colony we would do pretty good, unfortunately(?)
the self-interested human species doesn't scale very well.
I consider the humans to be in a death spiral:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prjhQcqiGQc
Biology is full interesting relations.

I would say an aptitude of humans should be:
1.incorruptible leaders who act in the populations interest
2.an educated and informed population via the Internet who understand
forces (amoral and moral)
3.selfless individuals who look out for others


>
> About the next part, I'm looking for a political system that can solve
> our problems before we hit the catastrophe rather than resigning myself
> that some great power I've never seen will come rescue us. Maybe he
> won't. I'd rather be prepared.
>

Crypto(math) provides a tantalizing option for creating systems beyond
human influence, but I consider their is inherent limitations (I hope to be
proven wrong).
While we may be able to create a monetary system beyond manipulation, we
still can't control the moral meta-decisions of how those credits are used.
I find this line of reasoning to be sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFkZGpN4wmM

Of course we should not give up hope. We should continue to pursue our
goals and be a force for good, but the optimal morality has been rejected
of the world and humans will suffer the result. In the meantime the call is
going forward all over the world to gather the morally elect.