Sunday, November 24, 2024
Gun control: 20 years - gun world will turn upside down
If you think guns are too easy to get now, just wait a few years. Consider for a moment the profound effect computers have had on our lives as electronics technology has evolved smaller over the course of 40 years. The computer went from a size large enough to fill a room in 1965 to a desktop in 1985 and then a mobile device in 2005. A reduction in size is now happening in the world of manufacturing.
The revolution of additive manufacturing (3D printing, molecular, and nanotechnology) is bringing manufacturing to people's garages and soon to people's desktops and kitchens. See 3d Printing
Soon before you come home from work, your son will have already downloaded open-source (free) gun design specifications (just like a cooking recipe) and be growing a small arsenal in the privacy of your home. Yes, grow, just like plants grow. That's how additive manufacturing works.
No longer do you need to by guns to have guns. How are we going to regulate this new world?
The vision-less leaders you voted into office have no clue this is the future, because they're not thinkers; they're mostly just [non-technical, non-scientific] social warriors (smiling, looking good, shaking hands, saying what people want to hear, and performing verbal battle within a socially correct framework of belief). And when tragedy strikes, you can hear them speak in vague social language like, "The people of the United States must come together...". Your elected leaders are not so likely to offer concrete answers to why things are the way they are and realistic solutions.
Usually politicians do not spend much of their lives developing an understanding of how the world works; they spend their lives developing their social politicking skills within a social belief system (religious conservative, liberal, etc.). This is subjective (backwards). The objective way is to first question whether the social beliefs are true or false. That might take more than a couple of decades of life experience and a genuine objective curiosity to understand how the world works.
Voters are the problem too
The candidate who wins the presidency, or, for that matter, most positions in politics, is the candidate who least offends on looks and message. That is to say, the voters are typically subjectively self-serving. They want what's in their personal best interest in the here and now and don't want to be told or learn that they are wrong and must change their beliefs. It's no wonder celebrities like George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey are sometimes asked if they will run for president.
So we end up with a leader who is better at presentation than substance. I am not implying these two celebrities are void of intellect. I am just making the point that the real intellects are filtered out of leadership positions because they have the real answers. And implementing the real answers could mean a percentage of society may be forced to face their self-serving beliefs.
How is the world going to get fixed if both the voters and elected leaders are unwilling or unable to be objective? This is why democracy largely fails.
Evolution is responsible for this mess. Evolution makes people more subjective than objective.
[New State] proposes incentivizing and promoting objective behaviors over subjective behaviors. This will lead people who have realistic explanations and solutions into leadership positions.
END
The revolution of additive manufacturing (3D printing, molecular, and nanotechnology) is bringing manufacturing to people's garages and soon to people's desktops and kitchens. See 3d Printing
Soon before you come home from work, your son will have already downloaded open-source (free) gun design specifications (just like a cooking recipe) and be growing a small arsenal in the privacy of your home. Yes, grow, just like plants grow. That's how additive manufacturing works.
No longer do you need to by guns to have guns. How are we going to regulate this new world?
The vision-less leaders you voted into office have no clue this is the future, because they're not thinkers; they're mostly just [non-technical, non-scientific] social warriors (smiling, looking good, shaking hands, saying what people want to hear, and performing verbal battle within a socially correct framework of belief). And when tragedy strikes, you can hear them speak in vague social language like, "The people of the United States must come together...". Your elected leaders are not so likely to offer concrete answers to why things are the way they are and realistic solutions.
Usually politicians do not spend much of their lives developing an understanding of how the world works; they spend their lives developing their social politicking skills within a social belief system (religious conservative, liberal, etc.). This is subjective (backwards). The objective way is to first question whether the social beliefs are true or false. That might take more than a couple of decades of life experience and a genuine objective curiosity to understand how the world works.
Voters are the problem too
The candidate who wins the presidency, or, for that matter, most positions in politics, is the candidate who least offends on looks and message. That is to say, the voters are typically subjectively self-serving. They want what's in their personal best interest in the here and now and don't want to be told or learn that they are wrong and must change their beliefs. It's no wonder celebrities like George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey are sometimes asked if they will run for president.
So we end up with a leader who is better at presentation than substance. I am not implying these two celebrities are void of intellect. I am just making the point that the real intellects are filtered out of leadership positions because they have the real answers. And implementing the real answers could mean a percentage of society may be forced to face their self-serving beliefs.
How is the world going to get fixed if both the voters and elected leaders are unwilling or unable to be objective? This is why democracy largely fails.
Evolution is responsible for this mess. Evolution makes people more subjective than objective.
[New State] proposes incentivizing and promoting objective behaviors over subjective behaviors. This will lead people who have realistic explanations and solutions into leadership positions.
END