It does not matter that’s just an illusion, as humans behave as behave (which is written in DNA and tuned w/ environemt) despite any our wishings. We need at least 10-100K years (based on the speed of the evolution) to grow up/mature.
You might be gravely underestimating the speed of our evolution. We were once only unremarkable primates… Then the modern form of humans (i.e. you and I) evolved about 200 000 years ago. Civilization as we know it is only about 6000 years old, and true industrialization started in the 1800s. Knowledge is now doubling every 18 months and its associated wisdom will likely follow in due course. Our genetic make-up still harbors the same exact code that once made us unreasonable barbarians and yet look at far we’ve come today as each new generation tries to build a better tomorrow.
Yes, totally agree, the evolution is very slow. I just pulled those numbers out of thin air as I did not want to calculate the probability (based on our current population) of the mutation causing some (positive) big change in our phenotype. Also, do not forget AI and gene editing (CrispR or similar) which can speed up the evolution.
I did similar things when I did my master degree in this field.
Anyway, I think (which could not reflect the reality) that my numbers could still stand based on the last 65K years of history, but more realistically it’s highly underestimated as you mentioned.
We must demand the best from people regardless of our base instincts. Giving up is not my way. I fully realize we will all probably fall short but one must try anyway. One may be pleasantly surprised.
There are seven steps to successfully negotiating the resolution of a conflict:
Understand the conflict.
Communicate with the opposition.
Brainstorm possible resolutions.
Choose the best resolution.
Use a third party mediator.
Cope with stressful situations and pressure tactics.
How to Resolve Conflict
Agree on a mutually acceptable time and place to discuss the conflict.
State the problem as you see it and list your concerns. …
Let the other person have his/her say. …
Listen and ask questions. …
Stick to one conflict at a time — to the issue at hand. …
Seek common ground.
BTW that is one of the reasons I like crypto so much. It uses game theory to harness human traits that are usually antisocial like greed to benefit the system. Sort of the intersection of idealism and realism.
Cultural evolution is very, very much faster. I believe it’s fair to say that the vast majority of optimists regarding human behavior see it as evolving culturally rather than physically, whether they use these terms or not. (I’m one of them, as @Risus76 seems to be.)
Rob, I did not want to go deep on this as it’s very complex, that’s why I skipped to answer to this to @Risus76. But look around in our “civilised” world, we are not different than those barbarian ancestors despite we call us civilised and believe in that we are more intelligent than them, for example, in the dark age. We are same as a “tamed” tiger who might tear us apart if it’s provoked.
There is no doubt, that environment (including culture), had and has a huge effect on us, but we are very similar to that tiger I have mentioned. Just try to fast it for some day and you will see what really she is, and we are like the same.
You’re right, this goes too deep for a forum discussion, so I’m just going to point out that some people who have looked at this very deeply disagree with you, such as Steven Pinker.
The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011), makes the case that violence in human societies has, in general, steadily declined with time, and identifies six major causes of this decline. Enlightenment Now (2018), continues the optimistic thesis of The Better Angels of Our Nature by using social science data from various sources to argue for a general improvement of the human condition over recent history.
Hi everyone, here the Chairperson again emerging on the Forum…
With regard to the issue of “anonymous Cardano Ambassadors”, we have been deliberating this intensely internally. We have concluded that for the very Ambassador position, we will ultimately require real names for the Ambassadors.
At the same time, we are aware of the need and value of being anonymous for some people and/or groups of people, and we are aware of the need and value of the contributions made by such anonymous people and/groups of people. As a result, we are currently thinking of another “badge of recognition” for that group of anonymous contributors, and I trust we will shortly come up with some good ideas.
Best regards - Nathan
First and likely last post. Bert- I appreciate that you seem to have put so much thought into this proposal, but I stopped reading once you started picking days of the week. Good luck with all this hot garbage.
Here is an anonymous user who signed up 3 days ago, that´s his first ever post in the Forum, somehow he knows my nick (Bert) and starts immediately with an attack.
This is a very common pattern we experienced over the last period, lot of shadow users.
I really appreciate the decision for not having anonymous Ambassadors, but we still have people with multiple anonymous accounts misusing them in the Forum for the purpose of politics, shaping public opinion, throwing personal attacks and participating in Forum polls casting multiple votes.
Maybe the draft anonymity useage policy in the header of this topic might be considered to introduce a few new flags for the moderators to act upon.
Thank you for being here.
No matter how people hate @bercinho, you have to give credits to him on addressing the issue and providing the constructive suggestion.
Not everyone doing PPT and drawing table charts for their replies.
Right now when he points out something, a bunch of bert-haters will just jump out and question his intention and accuse his motivation with ego.
Let’s be reasonable here. Let’s agree to disagree.
I’ll use my second post to explain that I find the drama that seems centered around a single user off-putting and will probably not invest much time here. I’m not sure it was intended as an attack, but more of a comentary that the suggestion for a weekend drama party seems absurd. I’m not a bot, nor a product of your apparent perceived enemies. Take it easy and consider taking a break. Either way, good luck and maybe we’ll meet on the moon or in Miami. I’ll let myself out, k thx bye.
There is a lot of heat on this topic. The freedom to discuss it and to be able see the other person’s point of view is important here. Otherwise, it’s just about ‘being right’ and pushing one’s point of view off onto others.
This is common and not productive beyond the continuation of a disagreement.
In my opinion, this protocol, this movement is about evolving out of an existing bad model. The protocol IS doing this is a methodical, scientific fashion. It’s not emotional. It’s practical and seemingly effective (when it’s all live and in real time operation we will confirm this); but we (and this is my personal view point) have to evolve in our actions and how we interact, rather than applying what passes for ‘normal’ (cat fights on face book, character defamation on line). We are not the ‘mobs of Rome’, or barbarians and we can not illustrate this in our conduct. Otherwise, possibly, we will check the advance of this movement. By our actions people will know us.
Okay, a set of guidelines for agreed upon discourse puts in a measure of order in the group and actually protects it. Keeps it ethical, productive and takes away the ability to tear it apart, unchecked and hidden. It’s pretty simple.
Hopefully I am not going on to much of a tangent here, but people who want to hide their identity and do something or say something is because it’s destructive, their intention).
If someone wants to say something productive or helpful, why would they need to hide, or advocate the ability for someone else to hide themselves and say something which results in conflict in the group? It actually makes people look down on ‘freedom’ or rather it’s abuse.
Progress requires order before popularity.
I totally agree!!
Actually the guideline is there already, and I believe any of us has no problem with it.
The problem right now is more about “how to moderate”, it’s nontransparent, it’s double standard, it’s target-specific and it just became a weapon to silence people.
You can just see what I just encountered an hour ago.
The only reason given for post removal is “inappropriate”. It’s just like a police giving you a speed ticket saying too fast.
I guess first we need to know, who is doing the flagging, doing the removing, doing the banning, and for what reasons with what kind of rulings.
Let’s moderate the things in a right way.
I nearly agree completely. I just think that the system should actually HELP in reducing the ego and concentrating on the factual issues. But even without the help of the system: I think we all here are not six years old any more where we have to cry out loud and immediately that we don’t like the soup mom has cooked today. We all are able to reflect before we write, so why not just doing it? It’s much more fun to discuss with people in a civilized way, doesn’t matter if we agree on the topic or not. This is a great achievement of our culture. And it works without any system.
Here I’m not that much optimistic: We can lose our civilisation very fast. Just assume a perfect solar storm that grills our grids or a minor atomic war. After losing the glue of our community we will find us falling back very fast to the state of being intelligent primates, fighting for their lives.
Yes, absolutely! If we don’t demand it, it will for sure not show up.
It’s not hard to know it. It can be found a hundred times in the forum. Why are you sure that this is someone else who just created a new account? And why attack? He (or maybe she) just told you that (s)he disagrees with your proposal of opening these topics just on some days in the week (and so do I). Well, the word “hot garbage” are not nice, but does this make an attack? And yes, it’s an anonymous user. As well as I am an anoymous user. And I think that everyone should be anonymous if there is not a really good reason for being not anonymous.
Obviously in your world there is always a but… Ah, by the way:
Did you vote? Did the Watchdogs vote? Did the Guardians vote? Noone has accused you of voting with multiple accounts but you do it with others. Why?
There are many good reasons. Maybe you don’t want to be exposed because interest for crypto is not considered respectable in your professional community, as has been reasoned be @belowsearcher . Or e.g. think of the email group where bitcoin has been proposed. They were mostly anonymous. And I’m sure that these accounts have been scanned multiple times by criminals who would really like to know some real world persons who could own some 10.000 bitcoins. Do you know what will happen to Cardano in five or in ten years? I think it’s perfectly reasonable to stay anonymous. That does mean in no way that you have to throw away your good manners while writing…
Okay, I can see your point on “not acceptable in ones community in certain cases for shielded identity. I get the logic.
I hope cryptocurrency is eventually accepted and so we won’t have to hide. I do think that this is not most people, but I get your point. There just has to be accountability for one’s actions. However we get there. We need this.
What I want to see:
Is a safe space to have intelligent, productive and solution-oriented dialogue that’s promotes a healthy exchange of ideas that actually listens to one another and is restrained from angry, antagonistic or manipulative outbursts - as this is not real communication.
I think we are looking at this only because it’s normal to allow the good and the destructive - and we’ve seen the consequences.
I simply agree we can be better than this. Codes, policies (whatever) is the normal way to do it.
All organizations do this. It’s pretty usual.
Codes and guidelines are civilizing efforts. We should be thoughtful and welcoming I think.
Okay, great! I appreciate it.
i really like the idea and spread positivity.