The End or the Means?

I have started to read a book called "The Conquest of Happiness" by the famous 20th century British philosopher Bertrand Russell. With the first few pages I have obtained some bits of Information that my readers might find useful. The reading has also left me with some interesting questions I must ask myself.

I seek here to talk about Ends and Means in Informationalism. It is a long standing popular debate within philosophy about the importance of Ends and Means. I am sure you are all familiar with the famous quote by the Italian political theorist Machiavelli who said that, "The ends justify the means". There have been some claims that this was a mistranslation, but the overall idea is still spelled out in his work "The Prince".

The famous German metaphysicist Immanuel Kant believed that individuals should treat other human beings as ends in themselves and not just means to an end. Philosophy has long troubled itself over what ends should be chosen and what the best means are to those ends. In fact, that is the central theme in philosophy. This skepticism about ends and means is what separates it from the modern day business mentality, which knows the ends, and simply debates the means.

I shall discuss a bit about what Bertrand Russell has said, and then give some of my own thoughts on its relationship to Informationalism.

Russell says in the opening of his book that, "The typical unhappy man is one who, having been deprived in youth of some normal satisfaction, has come to value this one kind of satisfaction more than any other, and has therefore given to his life a one-sided direction, together with a quite undo emphasis upon the achievement as opposed to the activities connected with it" (Russell 22). To simplify, it seems that people of living circumstances that are not unusually psychologically agitating at a glance, have been exposed over time in their past to unnatural circumstances which have twisted their mental health.

This does not seem surprising, as the simple construction of modern civilization seems well beyond the state humans have lived in throughout most of their existence. Adaptation to this new environment on a biological level is bound to have its drawbacks; this idea is similar to the idea of "The Shadow" advanced by the psychoanalyst Carl Jung.

Russell speaks primarily about 4 kinds of character stereotypes: The guilty sinner, the narcissist, the megalomaniac, and the hedonist.

The guilty sinner is an individual who has been instilled with an impossible moral code, something comparable to the puritan moral code, which causes him to feel himself a lowly creature never deserving of love. It is no doubt that this morality would lead to a sense of unhappiness and perhaps nihilism.

The narcissist is an individual who wishes to be loved by all, and to be seen as charming. They are wrapped up in love with themselves. This love leads to treating people as means instead of ends, and overall unhappiness with a vanity that can never be satisfied.

The megalomaniac is similar to the narcissist, but his end is power, power for its own sake, and not for the sake of accomplishing something else. This complex simply leads to the desire for more power, an impossible amount of power, which will also ensure the individual is never happy.

Finally the hedonist chooses to indulge in simple pleasures. They escape their own discontent by indulging in quick fix habits such as drugs to forget their own displeasure. However, the displeasure returns as the drug wears off, and so it must be taken again to forget the added displeasure of the burden of this knowledge.

Perhaps some of you have noticed that all 4 of these are recursive systems? It is also not unusual to find individuals who shift between these modes of character.

So Russell seems to suggest that one should practice an activity for its own sake. One should treat the activity as an end in itself. For example, one should play basketball not to win the NBA championship, but because they enjoy playing basketball. We practice martial arts not for the belt, but for the sake of the art and its enjoyment. Russell suggests that this is the only way to ensure happiness.

How does this relate to Informationalism?

We've been discussing means and ends. So how does this concept apply to Informationalism?

Informationalism is a means, and not an end. I have stated that we should acquire and freely distribute Information for its own sake. It is true, perhaps and end could be to ensure the survival of the species. It is also true that I think that Informationalism is the best way to ensure that this end is met. However, this is not necessarily the "end" of Informationalism.

Regardless of whether or not we are Informationalists, we could still be wiped out at any time. As I just stated, Informationalism just ensures we are doing all we can to make sure that this does not happen. It is also, therefore, the only way to ensure that we continue to have any means or ends to explore at all. It thus appears, as I have said before, that the preservation of the species is the ultimate end if there could ever be such a thing.

Informationalism itself, once again, is a means, it is an activity. Acquiring more knowledge about the world is an art that can be practiced, the same as basketball or martial arts. As one practices, one can become more adept at this art. We do it, however, not as an obsession with the ultimate end that we may never reach, but for the activity itself. Informationalism gives the individual the opportunity to grow outside the confines of systems that narcissistically claim to be able to explain everything. To join it is, as always, a choice.

Take yourself all the way back to Socrates: What do you really think that you know?

Informationalism and Iraq

If there is one subject that a modern American citizen cannot escape if they wish to be a player in the discussion of our future, it is Iraq. Thus, I will attempt to deal with the situation in Iraq as an Informationalist. Perhaps viewing the situation from an Informationalist's perspective will shed some light on the problems and possible solutions.

As an Informationalist, historicism is very important as one begins to approach a problem. If we do not understand the events leading up to the current situation, it is highly unlikely that we are going to find a way to resolve the problem. I would cite politicians such as Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas who had no idea the distinction between Shi'a and Sunni factions overall, much less in Iraq. We cannot expect our politicians to pursue strategies that will actually solve these problems unless they actually understand what the problems are.

So first I will refer you to some links that can provide you with a comparative history of the situation in Iraq, and then give you a brief summary if you choose not to explore them, which I highly recommend that you do. I would also recommend you read the Wikipedia on each, however, due to the prejudice against Wikipedia, I will attempt to utilize more verifiable sources.

Links:

Shi'a

Sunnis

Kurds

Iraq

So, for those of you who do not want to make use of the links I have provided, here is a short history of the conflict:

The split of the Roman Empire into two provinces, combined with the later collapse of the western half in 450 AD and the weakening of the eastern half left a power vacuum in the middle east. It is natural that some force would come to fill this vacuum.

As many of you know, a man named Mohammed founded Islam in the 7th century AD. His successors took the title of Caliph, a role that can be equated roughly with the medieval Pope. However, unlike the Pope, the Caliphate became a post ruled in dynastic fashion, as opposed to election. The dispute over dynastic succession is the origin of the Sunni and Shi'a split.
The Shi'a believe that the 4th Caliph who was a relative of Mohammed should have had his offspring continue the dynastic rule of the Caliphate. However, a close associate clan took the power of the Caliphate and established the Umayyad dynasty.

The Shi'a split off from the main current of Islam and became an oppressed minority. This minority located itself mainly in the former area of Persia (Iran) and established itself as a separate sect of Islam with a similar belief structure.

The Umayyad dynasty flourished during the early 8th century. It relocated the capital of the Caliphate from Medina to Damascus in Syria. It came into conflict with the remaining Eastern part of the Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire. They lost favor in the heartland of Islam as another clan known as the Abbasids rose to power with the support of the Shi'a. They destroyed Umayyad rule in the mid 8th century everywhere except near the area of Spain, where the Umayyad Caliphate remained for some time.

The Abbasid Dynasty moved the capital of the Caliphate from Damascus to Baghdad. They continued the struggle against the Byzantine Empire, and struggled with the risen west which had now been somewhat unified by the authority of the Catholic Church. Their rule, like many, was marred with massive infighting during times of war and peace. They at first had the support of the Shi'a, as they did appear to have some blood linkage to Mohammed. However, they quickly turned to Sunni support and lost the favor of the Shi'a. In the late 13th century the Abbasid dynasty was all but overthrown by the rising Ottoman Turks.

In the early 14th century the Ottoman Empire under the rule of the Turkish Sultan became the primary force behind Islam. It would remain so until its destruction at the end of the First World War in the 1920's.

The Ottoman Empire was based out of Turkey. In the early 15th century they took over the capital of the Byzantine Empire known as Constantinople, formally bringing the eastern half of the Roman Empire to an end. It is this event which many argued had a primary affect on waking Western Europe from its slumber and bringing it into the Renaissance.

The Ottoman Empire began to decline as the powers of Europe began to expand in the early 16th century. Colonization of the new world and the coming Industrial revolution left the Ottoman Empire behind as a real world power. It attempted to assert its influence one last time in allying itself with the central powers in the First World War. However, it was defeated, and its defeat ended the Ottoman Empire.

The British and the French occupied most of the middle-east in the wake of the First World War, and the center of the Ottoman Empire shortly after became the Republic of Turkey. The British and the French partitioned their new middle-eastern provinces. They set up the area which would become Iraq under a king who needed their support to rule the area.

The outbreak of the Second World War and its disastrous effect on Britain and France forced them to give up their colonial possessions in the Middle East. Iraq was put under the rule of the king which could not stand without their support, and thus he was almost immediately overthrown.

From the 1940's onward Iraq was ruled by one military dictatorship after another until the Ba'ath party came to power. The Ba'ath party operated under a political platform of Arab Socialism. It is different from the usual association of socialism with secularism, but is overall left in its leaning.

Saddam Hussein came to power using the mechanisms of the Ba'ath party and established a form of military dictatorship over the country. Early into his rule he began a War with Iran, which was one of the most deadly non-nuclear wars ever fought in history. The United States initially supported Saddam because of his stance against Iran. It must be noted that this was during the Cold War, and hard-line military dictatorships were often favored by the US or USSR in order to further their broader agendas against one another.

Iran is primarily a Shi'a nation in the area where Persia was once dominant centuries ago. It was ruled by an American installed dictator until the 1970's when a coup brought to power an Islamic republic that has had bad relations with western powers such as the United States since its foundation.

Much bad blood was created from Saddam's War with Iran. This is because Saddam brutally oppressed the Shi'a majority in Iraq, as Iran is also Shi'a and many of the Shi'a in Iraq did not support the Sunni minority government. Saddam also brutally oppressed the Kurds in the Northern Portion of Iraq, because of their association with Iran to overthrow Saddam's government in hopes of creating a Kurdish state in return. This oppression took the form of deadly chemical attacks, which lead to the accusations that Iraq continued to possess chemical weapons, and that Saddam was a war criminal for using them.

It should be noted that a little history of the Kurds is necessary here. They are an ethnic people who live in Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey. These people have been brutally oppressed over the centuries for their more secular stance as well as their desire for a national homeland known as Kurdistan.

The War against Iran was a disaster, and it left Iraq so far in debt that Saddam attempted to invade the wealthy state of Kuwait in the early 1990's. This Endeavour was thwarted by a Coalition including the United States in what would be called the First Gulf War.

After Saddam's defeat in the first Gulf War, his dictatorship limped along under constant bombardment from United States forces and constant accusation of the possession of unlawful chemical weapons.

After the attacks on the World Trade Center Buildings in American on September 11th, the Bush Administration began to pursue Saddam with renewed vigor on his WMD program and his funding of Terrorism in Palestine. This culminated in a Second Invasion of Iraq in 2003. An invasion that was successful in immediately ending Saddam's fragile regime, but has been plagued with problems stemming from the Sunni, Kurdish, and Shi'a division, as well as divisive influence from Syria and Iran.

This brings us to today:

Nearly 3000 American troops have been killed and many more wounded. The Iraqi parliament is split between the factions of Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd.

The Shi'a, especially under the influence of Shi'a cleric Al-Sadr are accused of supporting Shi'a death squads. The Kurds want great autonomy in the northern part of Iraq as part of their dream of establishing Kurdistan, Al-Qaeda is using Iraq as a base of operations against the United states, and the Sunnis who were in power under the rule of Saddam are conducting an Insurgency against the American backed and Shi'a dominated government. It should also be noted that the original Iraqi military was disbanded by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and this fatal mistake is one that must be delt with so that order can be regained.

The Iraq Study Group Report states that violence is rising and that that the country will slide into complete chaos if something is not done soon.

So now that we as Informationalists have explored the history, what can we do?

So, the situation in Iraq boils down to this:

The Shi'a are the majority population in Iraq, and thus they have been swept into power by the recent Iraqi elections. Many of them have been using their newfound power to exact revenge for decades of Sunni oppression. These Shi'a are supported on a basic level by Iran, as their Shi'a dominated republic is an outcast like the Shi'a in Iraq from the majority of the Muslim world. As has been shown, the Shi'a and Sunni conflict goes back centuries, and the blood spilled between the two in Iraq has only deepend the divide.

The Kurds in the north still dream of their homeland of Kurdistan. They are a more secular bunch and their lack of desire for sectarian violence has caused their area to be more prosperous than the Sunni or Shi'a dominated areas in Iraq. In the future this unbalance of wealth coupled with Shi'a rule may prove to be yet another split. However, for the time being the Kurds have a loose alliance with the Shi'a against their collective Sunni oppressors.

The Sunni are in a state of cultural shock due to their loss of power. This is also unusual given the dominance of the Sunni sect throughout the rest of the Muslim world. Not only are they more apt to support the old regime and Ba'ath party run by Saddam (a Sunni), but they are angered by the death squads supported by clerics such as Al-Sadr. This is fueling the Sunni led insurgency against the new Iraqi government.

Al-Qaeda is also in Iraq. It has a loose affiliation with the Sunni insurgency, but its overall goal is simply to fight the Coalition forces.

Now, the Sunni overall dislike the coalition forces. The Shi'a as a majority feel that the coalition forces should leave the country. The only thing close to support that the coalition has comes from the Kurds. Other than that, the United States as picked western friendly individuals and helped to elevate them into prominant status within the government. This has generated much resentment towards the current government, which is at the same time powerless to rebel too far against its Shi'a support block.

Syria and Iran are also working to undermine coalition support within the region, and to establish an Iraqi government that is supportive of the regimes in Iran and Syria.

So, how does one solve all these complicated blood spilling conflicts when the only thing most seem to have in common is disgust with the coalition?

I would encourage all of you to read the Iraq study group report cited earlier, as it offers many potential solutions. However, I also attempt to offer mine using the perspective of Informationalism.

1. We have to be agressive about controlling the ability of the Iraqis to obtain weapons for the time being. A close crackdown on the boarder and a massive weapons exchange program should be initiated where guns would be exchanged for some other useful good.

2. This will bring the coalition into conflict with the Shi'a militias as well as insurgents. These people must be forced to give up their weapons. They have already shown they are willing to brutally murder innocent people for nothing more than revenge. The coalition military must engage the militias and disarm them as effectively as possible.

3. This will be met with outrage from most of the Iraqi government. So the coalition must do some deal making. Greater autonomy must be allowed for the Kurdish and Sunni dominated areas of Iraq, in exchange for the giving up of militias. A system must also be set up for the sharing of country oil revenues.

4. With the destruction of the militias the Iraqi army and police force must be allowed to patrol the country in greater numbers. The coalition forces will take on more of an advisory role as they begin their withdrawl. The Iraqi government should be provided with UN and Arab League support to the fullest extent possible. This includes aid to the Iraqi people and the creation of large government works programs to bring the basic industrial structures of Iraq back online.

5. Massive amounts of aid must be given to the people of Iraq. In order to gain their support, the coalition must ensure that their basic needs are being met by their government. Currently, this is not being done effectively.

6. The coalition must build schools, as well as set up student exchange programs where Iraqi children can be taken to Western countries to be educated. I am aware this appears ethnocentric on the surface, but the western education system is far closer to Informationalism than Islamic education. Prisoners must also be offered a kind of education to make it more likely that they will not return to negative activity upon their release.

7. The coalition must hold talks with Iraq, Syria, and Iran with a moderator in order to come to border and trade decisions, as well as moderate the influence each power has upon the new Iraqi government.

Notes: The crackdown on the militas must be done within a 72 hour period. The military operation must be swift in order to ensure its effectiveness. After the deal of regional independence is reached under the table, the coalition must isolate as many insurgent and militia targets as possible, and eliminate them. This must be done with the help of the Iraqi army and police. Also, in order to do this, many more troops will be required. We currently have close to 150k troops in the country of Iraq. We must increase this number to at least 300k if we hope to establish any kind of peace.

What if we simply leave?

Then the country will descend into chaos.


What if we just keep the forces that we have?

This might be possible, but we will have to conduct many swift special operations in order to eliminate troublesome militia leaders. It will be a long arduous task and success is not nearly as likely.


One thing is for sure, what we are currently doing is not working. Any better ideas?

Bad Religion - Cease

This is a song called "Cease" by Greg Graffin, the lead singer of Bad Religion. I chose it not only for the genius of the lyrics, but also for the beauty of its style. The concepts portray some of the philosophy of Informationalism through the eternal art of music.

"The Gist" of Informationalism


I received a comment on my last entry that my thoughts were fascinating, however, the reader was still trying to understand "the gist" of my thinking. So, my hope here is to clarify the basics of the perspective of Informationalism.

Informationalism has its foundation on this positive judgment. It is Positive in that the truth of this statement can be tested scientifically. This first part is about pure informationalism.

The free distribution and acquisition of Information is the only way to ultimately ensure the survival of humanity.

This is not only testable, it is quite obvious. For example, not all that long ago in human history it was the consensus of the "scientific" community that Malaria was caused by "bad air". As we acquired new information from observation through the scientific method, we discovered the actual cause of Malaria. We have thus been far more effective in dealing with the disease, and sparing ourselves from it.

Some might retort that there might be instances where it is to our advantage not to know the truth of what is taking place, or that there are things which we can never know.

To the first I would respond that in order to know this, we would first have to acquire more information.

To the second, I would make a similar reply, and state that asserting that there are things we can never know is a complete illusion. To say that something always or never occurs is based on knowledge which we do not yet have, therefore we can only say what is and what is not likely. However, one must not make the mistake of thinking this means things like creationism are on par with sciences like evolution. Some things have evidence and others do not, and if you choose to ignore the evidence, it is highly likely natural selection is going to be very unkind to you.

What if Information is simply an Illusion?

Again, we would need more information to know this. Also, those who choose not to explore this "illusion" (and it is a choice) are once again highly likely to be naturally selected out of existence.

Couldn't we still be destroyed with Informationalism? And why should it matter?

Yes, to the first question. Our complete demise could come at any moment. But it is highly likely that with Informationalism we are giving ourselves our best chance at survival. Once again, I cannot think of a situation where it wouldn't be beneficial to have more information. The only way to know it wouldn't be more beneficial is to have more information, unless one knew everything.

To the last question, it matters because only things that are the best at surviving make it in the end. Informationalism is the ultimate survival strategy. If you don't want to survive, that's fine, but that line of thought is only possible if there is a drive around you to survive, otherwise the entire race would perish.

Is extinction a bad thing?

Once again, that's up for the reader to decide. Pure Informationalism does not tell you what is good or bad, it simply tells you what happens. This is because pure Informationalism is scientific.


Practical Informationalism

Obviously we cannot always have all of the Information. It's also not always possible to make judgments on immediately testable hypotheses.

This is where practical Informationalism comes into play. This is what I have been outlining throughout most of the last part of my blog.

I've been asking myself the question: How can we create an environment that moves closer to pure informationalism, because pure informationalism gives us our best chance at survival.

This is where species-useful and individual-useful information came into play. I suggested that if Informationalism is true then one cannot separate the good of the individual from the good of the group. If the group is not acting in the interests of the individual, it is not informationalist, and if the individual is not acting in the interests of the group, then it is not being informationalist.

This means the group respects the privacy of individual-useful information and the individual understands the necessity of providing species-useful information.

Why are the group and the individual afraid of one another in modern society?

Since they understand the power of Information, people are afraid of others knowing their secrets. This is because of the power it gives others over them. Knowledge is power, and the one who has the knowledge and refuses to share it is in a position of power.

What the individual who does not share information does not realize, is that this individual is ultimately damaging themselves and others in the future. It is not always for sure in an uninformationalist society who will have the power of Information.

So, in an Informationalist society, this fear of secrets ceases to have its power. Power through Information is collective, as it should be, since it is the only real source of power.

-----------------

I divided the progression of Practical Informationalism towards a kind of Pure Informationalism into stages.

1. Discourse Informationalism- Where Informationalists strive to create an environment that promotes Informationalism.

2. Revolutionary Informationalism- This occurs ostensibly when Informationalists are the ones that wield the power in a nation or world political entity. Then one can use the mechanisms of the state to speed the transformation towards Informationalism.

3. Traditional Informationalism- This takes place when Informationalism has become the established norm in the society. From this point onward it will be up to a new generation of individuals with a completely evolved worldview from our own to decide the future.



Once again, Informationalism is a choice. But it seems highly likely that those who do not choose Informationalism will eventually not be around to tell their tales.

Those of you, who choose to survive, choose to be Informationalists. Those who do not choose to be Informationalists, choose not to survive.

Are there things more important than the survival of the species?

I haven't come across any testable Information to the contrary.

I was having dinner at a McDonald's last night when a thought came to me: Are abortion and suicide in coherence with the perspective of Informationalism?

Why was this important?

Informationalism cannot condone murder. Since the freedom of acquisition and distribution of Information are its foundations, one cannot kill another human being unless that human being is trying to kill the other individual. This is because people are the ultimate storage and generation areas of Information. Information is only significant if it is being applied to the individual, idle information is wasted information. Thus, if an individual tries to kill another for no reason other than desire, then they desire the destruction of a place where information is generated and stored. This is why only you, yourself are allowed to kill in defense of yourself.

Before I begin this discussion, let me state that the first and most important premise in these areas is to acquire information so that the destruction of Information is not necessary. Any destruction of Information is not desired. However, what must be done if the Informationalist is forced to act without the Information?

This is my opinion, and may not be shared by all Informationalists. What we agree on is the former statement in bold.

What about killing for a cause? If an individual isn't trying to kill you directly, but they are trying to destroy Informationalism, are you obliged to kill them?

No.

Killing is only justified when another party desires to destroy the individual. If they are attempting to destroy another person, then they must simply be restrained by force.

What if they cannot be restrained by force?

If the individual wishes to destroy the Information with such conviction that they cannot be restrained, then as I have said in another post: biology will take over and informationalism need not say anymore about the outcome.

Is this outcome good?

Beyond Informationalism, good and bad are subjective. As we acquire more information, the things that "work" will become more apparent. As the journey continues, we must regard this outcome as favorable, because biology has prevailed, and the Informationalist has survived. However, the death of any human being is always cause for remorse. Even if this human being seeks to destroy Information, it is regrettable that their desires were set up such that there was no way to coexist. As always, the ultimate goal is to acquire such Information as to make this occurrence unnecessary.

What about in War?

If Informationalists wage war, it must come with provocation. In a state of war, each armed party is trying to destroy each other armed party. Killing in this sense is the same as defending oneself. War does not seem favorable, however, because of the torrential loss of potential Information.

What about all the technological progress War has brought?

It cannot be denied that war drives invention. However, this inventive drive is a dangerous one. The stakes are very high. Also, while there is an increase in the sophistication of technology, there is a general degradation of the living standard. This type of activity cannot be continued indefinitely. Ultimately, the species cannot be sustained under a state of technological warfare.

How does this system work towards people who are not Informationalists?

For example, if we have information that another force Informationalist or Noninformationalist is going to attack us, should we strike first?

It seems highly unlikely that Informationalists would wage war against one another. It is antithetical to their goals. If Informationalists were to wage war, it would be because information suggested that one party was about to strike first. In this case the first strike party would no longer be Informationalist. This could possibly occur with a misunderstanding, but with the free distribution and acquisition of Information, there is little Informationalist incentive to wage war against other Informationalists.

For those who are not Informationalists, Informationalists must first to attempt to restrain the attacking party by no lethal means. If they persist, once again, biology will take over.

Suicide

Should individuals be allowed to kill themselves?

If an individual chooses to kill him or herself, they are destroying a place where information is acquired and created. But Informationalism makes way for a private sphere, does this fall within the public or private sphere?

If an individual wishes to kill his or herself it is not an Informationalist desire. If it takes place, another individual may desire to stop them. This is not Uninformationalist. However, if the individual rejects Informationalism on these person grounds, it is their choice and if they persist nothing Informationalist can stop them. It would be more advantageous to use Informationalism to understand this desire and learn how to alleviate it.

What about the terminally ill wishing to be killed?

The same with suicide.

How should this be legislated?

Both might initially be restrained by Informationalists, this is not required, it is a choice. This is a desire that does not fall within Informationalism, and if they choose this Uninformationalist approach, it is their choice.


Abortion

When a fetus is not yet an independent entity capable of acquiring and producing Information without the existence of its mother, it and the mother are essentially the same thing. Therefore the laws of suicide apply.

The current state is regrettable. As with Informationalism, the goal is to better understand why this detrimental state occurs by acquiring Information and working to alleviate the problem of this destroyed potential Information.

Conclusion

Suicide and Abortion cannot be outlawed. There simply is not justification to invade the private sphere without the proper information. The goal is to acquire such information as to make these personal acts of destruction unnecessary.

Types of Informationalism

It is all well to do that the philosophy of Informationalism places the pursuit of, specifically, species-useful information above all. However, we do not live in a world that is in concordance with Informationalism. It is also not practical to assume that Informationalism will magically enter the minds of the populace and that the whole world will be changed forever and indefinitely. Where does this leave us?

First of all, it must be admitted that it is very difficult to change a traditional system. By this I mean a society of established social structures, values, and mores, which for the time are not causing immediate recognizable harm to a majority or violent minority of the populace. There is a threshold which must be reached.

A traditional system can only be changed if it has been shown that it works so ineffectively, that continuing to cling to this system will result in the destruction of the individual. I will deal here primarily with American society.

It is not yet obvious to the majority of the population that not valuing the pursuit of species-useful information will be ultimately detrimental to themselves and their posterity. In fact, the Christian faith professes that the world is going to end, and that this is the best thing that can happen for mankind. This kind of ideology is in direct conflict with Informationalism's normative judgment that it is better to work towards the survival of the species.

So what do Informationalists do about the majority of the population that either does not care about the destruction of the species, actually desires it, or does not see that this is likely to happen with the current system of social mores? It is here that I introduce the first type, or stage of Informationalism.

1. Discourse Informationalism

This is the earliest stage of Informationalism. The basic idea is to make society aware of the ideas behind Informationalism and to gather individuals who are early on willing to accept that the acquisition and free distribution of species-useful Information is the only way to ensure our survival.

The basic idea is to win over followers through argument. Individuals cannot be forced to choose Informationalism as their only perspective. Simply making Informationalism known and creating an environment where free discourse can be practiced is acting within the philosophy of Informationalism. It is my normative judgment that if we can create this environment of free discourse that Informationalism must win in the end. Informationalists hold the pursuit and free distribution of knowledge above all else; thus we can demonstrate our arguments in ways which dogmatic authors are hopelessly unable to replicate.

2. Revolutionary Informationalism

This stage will come ostensibly when the majority or a power wielding minority have accepted the perspective of Informationalism. Plans might in my opinion be made to accomplish the following:

1. Consolidation of all students under a national school system. The school system should have greater division of specialization at the culmination of the modern high school junior and senior years. The schools should be primarily run by a regional body that composes the national education body. Exceptions should be made for categorically exceptional students to receive further and more in depth education based on abnormal ability. The school system is to place equal emphasis on both the arts and sciences, so that students will graduate with a basic knowledge of the foundation and current theory of all modern arts and sciences. The college system is to remain private; however, a system of national colleges should be established to ensure all willing students an entry into higher education.

2. Greater funding directed toward the sciences, especially education along with research and development.

3. Funding to expand the current network speed and expanse of the national network of computers.

4. Automation of basic industry to be kept up and modified by a workforce of engineers.

5. A gradual narrowing and reduction of the duration of patents.

6. Funding towards the space program; especially the building of new and better space stations, crafts, systems of propulsion, colonization, manned and unmanned missions.

7. Implementation of mass transportation capable programs such as magnetic trains and light rail.

8. Establishment of a system of Universal Health Insurance, with greater focus on R & D in the medical field.

9. Move toward the declassification of government documents to be made available to the public.

10. A system of technological goals and mechanisms to achieve those goals at or by a certain deadline to be evaluated annually.

It should be noted that there is no clear boundary between discourse informationalism and revolutionary informationalism. Informationalists still actively seek to promote technologies and activities that further the acquisition and development of information.

11. The establishment and promotion of Informationalist groups outside of the nation.
    

Traditional Informationalism

This is the point when the vast majority of a society be it global or national, has decided to accept the perspective of Informationalism. The eleven points mentioned in revolutionary informationalism have been achieved nearly completely. From this point onward new goals must be established and perhaps new philosophies created for where the old has been found lacking. I am not claiming Informationalism is the eternal answer to everything. It is merely a different method to ensure that we are still here to keep solving problems.

** This is my aim for Informationalism and need not be mimicked exactly by all individuals. Again, the key here is diversity. But it is diversity within a frame that respects diversity as an advantage and not an obstacle to overcome. The diversity that views other diversity with hostility and does not seek to learn from it is not diverse; it is a self destructive philosophy.

As long as it can be agreed that the pursuit of species-useful information, the betterment of the individual and the species, and the free distribution of information are the key foundations then progress should be unavoidable. Once Informationalism has been established, those who would say they do not desire Informationalism will ultimately destroy themselves in the prejudice, or will be driven to hostile extremes by their lack of understanding from which they cannot recover.