Wikipedia.

I don’t know the details on how to rehost wikipedia by myself, and also how to search and access unofficial wikipedia servers either. If this is all common knowlege for internet users, I am seriously lagging behind here. But maybe you are right and there really is no universal appeal for this, and overall people just prefer to see wikipedia as a single entity. But I think there would be benefits in federating wikipedia. Basically it becomes harder to take down information, and allows us to bypass wikipedia’s own strictness and bias. I know there are wikipedia alternatives but I would like to be able to access different view points seamlessly in the same platform, just like it happens here.

Don’t listen to them. First thing putin asked was “do you want a talk show or a serious conversation?” You don’t need to agree with him but the whole interview was a reasonable and civilized attempt to show the russian perspective to western audiences.

I’m gonna listen to what he has to say and make up my mind.

You accuse someone of all sorts of things, and never give them a fair chance to defend themselves through dialog. Tell me again how this is a fair aproach. Sounds like you just want to shut down someone for fear of them being right and you wrong.

Science will give us new means to solve problems, but not the desire to solve them, which is what we are ultimately lacking.

If you envision human action as a composition of capability, interest and rationality, the latter being how consistently you use capability to accomplish goals aligned with your interests, maybe it could be a fault in the rationality itself. Would you agree with that? The idea that we have the means to solve a problem and assuming the intention to do so as well, but that humans collectively do not know how to apply knowledge correctly to achieve our interests in such political problems.

I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology. I already assumed we had enough technological capability, and then i assumed further (even though i’m not entirely convinced) that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem. What else remains? The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals. How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history? I’m not saying history is not important. But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context. We could work the specifics after that too, and they should make sense.

I think those two aproachs do not contradict. Yours is just very pragmatic and i respect it. But I think you didn’t understand the aspect of rationality as distinct from capability. This would be the inability to solve world hunger despite having the means to, that is just inconsistency in making good decisions. I think your analogy with the dark room even works here. You have all the tools to make the room bright and you certainly want to be able to see, but your decisions do not consistently bring about the desired result, which is an illuminated room. Edit: Well. I tried my best to explain. But looks like you are not interested in a discussion here. I grow tired of personal attacks.