Update

less_retarded_society.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Less [retarded](retard.md) society (LRS, same [acronym](acronym.md) as [less ret
 
 Less retarded society was invented by [drummyfish](drummyfish.md), who also created the concept of [less retarded software](lrs.md). The idea evolved from his previous writings about ideal society, most notably his 2019 manifesto called *Non-Competitive Society*.
 
-**How is this different from other ideologies and "life philosophies"?** Well, one principal difference is that **LRS doesn't want to [fight](fight_culture.md)**, in fact LRS adopts **a [defeatist](defeatism.md) mindset** to not compromise [morality](morality.md) by any desire to "win the game", behaving correctly is more important than achieving a goal, ends do NOT justify the means. In order to establish a truly good society a crucial realization is that **harm is only ever done by those trying to force their ideas** -- it is even irrelevant what the ideas are, whether it's self-interest, equality, collectivism, sharing, important is only that forcing any idea will do harm, so giving up force and violence is the absolutely essential first step we have to make. That's in stark contrast with today's mentality. Nowadays as well as in the past society has always been about conflict, playing a **game** against others (nowadays e.g. market competition, employment competition, media competition, ...) in which some win, some can manage and some lose. Most political parties nowadays just want to change the rules of the game or downright switch to a different kind of game, some want to make the rules "more fair", or to make it favor their represented minority (so called [fascism](fascism.md)), some just want to [hack](hacking.md) the game, some want to [cheat](cheat.md) to win the game easily, some want to play fair but still win (i.e. become "successful"). LRS simply sees any kind of such game as unnecessary, cruel, unethical and harmful in many ways not just to us, but to the whole planet. LRS therefore simply wants to stop the game, not by force but by making everyone see how bad the game is. It says that **competition and conflict must seize to be the basis of society**. There is no value in achieving anything by violence, such a change will soon be reverted by counter revolution, people themselves have to understand what's good and choose it voluntarily. That is one of the reasons why we are **[pacifists](pacifism.md)** and **reject all violence**, only wanting to promote our ideas by [education](education.md). We accept we may not achieve our goals and we most certainly won't achieve anything during our lifetime and that gives us the freedom to behave truly morally. We try to **never be [proud](pride.md)** of anything, as pride leads to violence and fascism. We are also in many ways aligned with the ideals of **[cynicism](cynicism.md)**.
+**How is this different from other ideologies and "life philosophies"?** Well, one principal difference is that **LRS doesn't want to [fight](fight_culture.md)**, in fact LRS adopts **a [defeatist](defeatism.md) mindset** so as to not compromise [morality](morality.md) by any desire to "win the game", correct behavior comes before achieving a goal, **ends NEVER justify the means**. In order to establish a truly good society a crucial realization is that **harm is only ever done by those trying to force their ideas** -- it is even irrelevant what the ideas are, whether it's self-interest, equality, collectivism, sharing, important is only that forcing any idea will do harm, so giving up force and violence is the absolutely essential first step we have to make. That's in stark contrast with today's mentality. Nowadays as well as in the past society has always been about conflict, playing a **game** against others (nowadays e.g. market competition, employment competition, media competition, ...) in which some win, some can manage and some lose. Most political parties nowadays just aim to change the rules of the game or downright switch to a different kind of game, some want to make the rules "more fair", or to make it favor their represented minority (so called [fascism](fascism.md)), some just want to [hack](hacking.md) the game, some want to [cheat](cheat.md) to win the game easily, some want to play fair but still win (i.e. become "successful"). LRS simply sees any kind of such game as unnecessary, cruel, unethical and harmful in many ways not just to us, but to the whole planet. LRS therefore simply wants to stop the game, not by force but by making everyone see how bad the game is. It says that **competition and conflict must seize to be the basis of society**. There is no value in achieving anything by violence, such a change will soon be reverted by counter revolution, people themselves have to understand what's good and choose it voluntarily. That is one of the reasons why we are **[pacifists](pacifism.md)** and **reject all violence**, only wanting to promote our ideas by [education](education.md). We accept we may not achieve our goals and we most certainly won't achieve anything during our lifetime and that gives us the freedom to behave truly morally. We try to **never be [proud](pride.md)** of anything, as pride leads to violence and fascism. We are also in many ways aligned with the ideals of **[cynicism](cynicism.md)**. One of our core principles it to **always accept the [truth](truth.md) no matter what it is**, even if it was uncomfortable or prevented our success, there must never be any attempt at achieving success through [censorship](censorship.md) or manipulation and distortion of facts, we must all collectively see the reality of our world as clearly as possible and make our best decisions accordingly.
 
 Note that less retarded society is an ideal [model](model.md), i.e. it can probably not be achieved 100% but it's something that gives us a direction and to which we can **get very close** with enough effort. We create an ideal theoretical model and then try to [approximate](approximation.md) it in reality, which is a [scientific](science.md) approach that is utilized almost everywhere: for example [mathematics](math.md) defines a perfect sphere and such a model is then useful in practice even if we cannot ever create a mathematically perfect sphere in the real physical world -- the mathematical equations of a sphere guide us so that with enough effort we are able to create physical spheres that are pretty close to an ideal sphere. The same can be done with society. This largely refutes the often given  argument that *"it's impossible to achieve so we shouldn't try at all"* -- we should try our best and the closer to the ideal we get, the better for us.
 
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ A paradise is achieved on [Earth](earth.md).
 *See also [FAQ](faq.md).*
 
 - **Isn't it utopia?** As explained above, the society is an ideal model that's probably not 100% achievable, but we are pretty certain we can get extremely close to the ideal in the real world implementation, there are no known obstacles to it. Even if we couldn't get very close to the ideal, it would be better to get a little closer than not, there is no logic in refusing to try. Every major invention happened for the first time one day, even when it's been called impossible; for example before [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) practically everyone would tell you the principles on which it would be built (free voluntary work, allowing anyone to edit) were utopian. History is basically a constant stream of events proving our disbeliefs wrong. Things such as abolishment of death sentence, universal literacy, universal health care, women in science, abolishment of black man slavery, instant world wide communication and similar things might have once been deemed a similar utopia.
-- **How is this different from "communism", "socialism" and other movements/ideologies that brought so much suffering and eventually failed anyway?** We are very different especially by NOT advocating revolutions, violence and forceful application of our ideas, we simply educate, show what's wrong and what the solution is. Harm has only ever been done by forcing specific ideas, no matter whether rightist or leftist ones -- the key in preventing harm is to avoid the temptation of forcing ideas. We know that only a voluntary, non-violent change based on facts and rational thinking can succeed in long term. The mistake of every failed "utopian" ideology was that it was forced, oppressive and in the end served only a few as opposed to everyone, no matter what the initial idea was. These ideologies fought other ideologies, creates cults of personalities and propaganda to manipulate masses. We do not fight anyone, we simply show the truth and offer it to people and believe that this truth can't be unseen. Once enough people see the truth and know what the logical solution is, a change will happen naturally, peacefully and inevitably, without any force.
+- **How is this different from "communism", "socialism" and other movements/ideologies that brought so much suffering and eventually failed anyway?** We differ especially by NOT advocating revolutions, violence and forceful implementation of our ideas. We merely [educate](education.md), show what's wrong and what the possible solutions are. Harm has only ever come from forcing ideas, no matter whether rightist or leftist -- the key in preventing harm is avoiding the temptation of pushing an ideology by force. We hold that only a voluntary, non-violent change motivated by rational reasoning can succeed in long term. The mistake of every failed "utopian" ideology was in force, that it became oppressive and ended up serving only a few on the detriment of others, no matter what the initial goal was. These ideologies fought between each other, erected [cults of personalities](hero_culture.md) and carried out propaganda to manipulate masses. We do not fight anyone, we simply show the truth and offer it to people and believe that this truth can't be unseen. Once enough people see the truth and know what the logical solution is, a change will happen naturally, peacefully and inevitably, without any force.
 - **How do you think it is realistic to achieve abundance of resources for all?** Nowadays it is easily possible to produce enough resources for everyone, i.e. food, electricity, clothing, buildings to live in etc. -- in fact this has been possible for many decades to centuries now, today all the technology for 99% automated production of most basic resources such as food and electricity is available and well tested, it is just kept in private hands for their sole profit. Nowadays our society is putting most of its effort to artificially made up "businesses" that keep the status quo, partly out of social inertia and partly by the (mostly decentralized and to a degree not even self admitted) conspiracy of the rich. Imagine people stop engaging in marketing, market speculation and investing, bureaucracy, public relations, law (copyrights, patents, property laws, taxes, ...), economics, military, meaningless technology (DRM, spyware, cryptocurrency, viruses and antiviruses, ...), artificial meaningless fashion, drug abuse business, organizing political parties, campaigns, unions, counter unions, cartels, strikes, and so on and so forth (this of course doesn't mean hobbies and art should disappear, just unnecessary industries). We will gain millions of people who can help achieve abundance, land that can be used to produce food and build houses to live in (as opposed to skyscrapers, unnecessary factories, parking lots etc.), and we will let go of the immense burden of bullshit business (millions of unnecessary workplaces having to be maintained, millions of people having to commute by car daily, communicate, organize, be watched by employers, ...). People will get healthier, more rested, cooperative and actually passionate about a common goal, as opposed to depressed (needing psychiatrists and antidepressants), lethargic and hostile to each other. Of course this can't happen over night, probably not even over a decade, but we can make the transition slowly, one step at a time and in the meanwhile use rules based e.g. on the following principle: that which is abundant is unlimited for everyone, that which is scarce is equally divided between all. The question is not whether it's possible, but whether we want to do it.
 - **Isn't your society unnatural?** In many way yes, it's unnatural just as clothes, medicine, [computers](computer.md) or humans living past 70 years are unnatural. Civilization by definition designates resistance to the cruelty of nature, however our proposed society is to live as much as possible in harmony with the nature and is much more natural than our current society which e.g. pushes sleep deprivation, high consumption of antidepressants, eating disorders, addiction to social networks and so on.
 - **Won't people get bored? What will motivate people? If they have everything why would they even get out of bed? Haven't you seen the mouse utopia experiments?** It is a mistake to think that competition and the necessity of making living is the only or even the main driving force of human behavior and creativity (on the contrary, it is usually what makes people commit suicides, i.e. lose the will to live). Human curiosity, playfulness, the joy of collaboration, boredom, sense of altruism, socialization, seeking of life meaning and recognition and many other forces drive our behavior. Ask yourself: why do people have hobbies when no one is forcing them to it? Why don't you bore yourself to death in your spare time? Why don't rich people who literally don't have to work bore themselves to death? Why doesn't your pet dog that's not forced to hunt for food bore himself to death? Why is it considered a punishment to put a man in a small room where he can do nothing but lie in a bed? Instead of the rat utopia urban legend try the *cat utopia* project yourself: buy a cat, give it love, home, food, toys, leisure, freedom and healthcare for free, see if it gets depressed -- many people have performed this experiment over and over and it usually turns out the animal is the happiest being under the Sun. Maslow's hierarchy of needs tells us that once people fulfill basic needs such as that for obtaining food, they naturally start to pursue higher ones such as that for socializing or doing science or art. Unlike rats in small cages people show interests in seeking satisfaction of higher needs than just food and sex, even those that aren't scientist try to do things such as sports, photography, woodwork or gardening, just for the sake of it. It's not that there would be a lack challenges in our society, just that we wouldn't force arbitrary challenges on people.