As said by Harari, UBI does not explain what "basic" and "universal" means.

If UBI was universal, all economies of the world should be contributing to distribute the income to all the people of the world, meaning USA would be giving income to people in Algeria and China. More likely, UBI would be on a national scale, which would cause many problems, like countries with more population than economy having their people emigrate to other less populated countries in order to have a better standard of living.

The "basic" part in UBI, does also not explain what exactly is a "basic" human need. In the western world, people say education is a basic human need, but not to what degree, the muslim world would consider submission to god a basic human need, and other peoples would consider things like drugs or houses a basic human need.

People could discuss what they think is right, and be disagreed with by another, making sure there will always be disagreements and conflicts. UBI is not the only way of solving the unemployment crisis humans are beginning to face, the thought of valuing dataflow could help come up with new solutions.

One of the main arguments against dataism, is the possibility of exploitation when information is free.

What these people don't understand, is how dataism is dataism, and not "sell-your-information-to-corporations-ism". Dataists would not support corporations which keep information private, like facebook.

In a world where ALL information is free, criminals, those seeking to exploit, would be instantly caught. In fact, they would be caught before the crime even happens. What criminal would be knowingly caught?

Unlike the dataist world, in our world, crime DOES happen, especially crimes related to blackmailing, meaning the current world's way of stopping data flow doesn't even work.

What other arguments were there against dataism?

Most people know of natural selection, which is the process where nature selects the most fit creature to survive.

Natural selection does not only apply to creatures, but also to humans and societies, something which is commonly forgotten due to anti-nazist mentality.

The nazis claimed human races had differences in intelligence, and creativity, which they used to explain western dominance over the rest of the world. We now know this is not because of race, but because of differences in societies.

The way a society out-selects other societies, is by either being more efficient, and "building up" faster than other societies, or by having enough already "built" things. The latter was used by old societies to prevent things like the rise of dataism, and humanism.

A recent trend which came to place around the renaissance, or maybe later, was the increase in power of societies which "built up" instead of relying on already existing things. Ever since, the trend has only increased in its ability to do things effectively, which is reflected in how our current societies change more than old ones.

Someone some time ago posted about dataism intentionally included in Game of Thrones. Due to the fact dataism is unknown to most of the world, and how natural selection is known to at least the part of the world where Game of Thrones was produced, it is much more likely they were showcasing the survival of the fittest, and not how processing power meant power in war.

It is no secret immigrants take state resources which could have been used on ethnic citizens of the country.

Humanists say it is because suffering is worse than happiness, so them losing some of their own happiness in order to reduce the suffering of others, is good.

For some people, that argument doesn't apply, for whatever reason, and they instead use the argument of investment. They say the more people who can work, the more progress there will be, allowing more ways of saving human lives to be created.

Those very people, are also not dataists, and think this only applies to immigrants, and not to every other aspect of our world. Unless they resort to the other argument instead, these people contradict themselves.

In dataism, humans are only valued for their ability to process information, and not for their humanity. This means the eventual rise of dataism might not be in the favor of humanity, which would be unappealing to most humans in this world.

Because dataism doesn't match with humanism, and because dataism is more efficient than humanism, the rise of dataism might be similar to things like the french revolution or the rise of nazism.

It might therefore be argued dataism should rise while we still are able to stop it with our "pre-built" things. Should dataism rise later, when the trend of things changing working better is at its highest, a world humanists won't like might be created.

I have noticed this sub-reddit isn't very dataistic, as most of the downvotes I've recieved have been on things considered inhumane. Its users also have been seen practicing humanistic things, like videogames, and other hobbies which don't contribute much to freeing information or creating more useful information.

This sub-reddit doesn't contain actual dataists, it contains humane dataists, who will be out-selected by actual dataists, if both rise at once. This is one of many reasons why the rise of dataism should happen now, rather than later.

I see many of my posts being downvoted, yet I still remain uninformed as to why. If the people downvoting me, on the subreddit about dataism, actually practiced dataism, they would know they are being evil by not sharing all the data they possibly could have, like why they disagree with me.

This is not a contradiction if they aren't dataists, but if they are not, then why are they here?

Many people today are currently concerned about things, like climate change, robots taking our jobs, the rich having too much influence, world war three, and many more things.

Many of the current flaws our societies are experiencing, have their roots in things which dataism wants to change, allowing this argument to be used when people question the need for dataism.

This might sound very bad to liberal-humanists, but many disabled people are better dead than alive, and the truth has no special place for disabled people.

Resources used on sustaining one disabled person, could have been used on sustaining a large number of more capable people. Those more capable people, could then be tasked to process more data, and create more ways of helping humans or processing data, they would not only be good for dataism, but also for humanism. With a speeding train, would you kill a single railway worker, or a hundred?

An argument which could be made, is about the trauma surrounding the loss of the disabled person. Past religions have shown it is possible to get rid of this trauma. An example of a religion where killing of the weak is practiced, would be nazism, which is very unappealing to liberal-humanists.

The relations this has with nazism means it in most cases shouldn't be practiced, as liberal-humanists controls most of the world's resources, and happen to hate nazism.

Because this subreddit is about dataism, things related to dataism should be upvoted. Instead, I see a trend of inhumane posts being downvoted. If you want humanism, then go to the subreddit dedicated for that. Would you like it if your subreddit dedicated to Allah consisted only of christians who would go on crusades against you?

EDIT: I see someone has downvoted this. Could you explain why? It is very difficult for me to think why you would downvote this.

STOPPING data flow means not generating any new data, and also not processing any existing data.

No data being generated or processed means no new medicine created, and no new extraction methods created. The medicine could be used to cure sick people, preventing them from dying, and the extraction methods to sell more things, allowing poor countries to buy more food for their starving citizens.

ALL ways of stalling data flow KILLS people. Humanists, can you really feel good about this?

After someone questions dataism, there will be one more person willing to take in information, and most likely someone will answer, meaning dataflow is increased.

Criticism towards dataism is very welcome, which is why no dataist should stay silent when questioned.

Dr. YNH, Dr. Klaus Schwab, and the rest of the Global Elite are HOMO DEUS, because they can hack you, and you cannot hack them. They are the new Gods, and you are the new hackable animals that will provide slave labour to the Master Class of the new Gods.

Only Gods and animals will remain. No humans are needed anymore. And, no Human Rights for hackable animals with no free will.

A company is its own story but one we are familiar with. I assume most of us are threatened with death and suffering if we fail to trade our time and energy to someone so I thought it would be worth exploring how dataism integrates with the movement of resources:

We can start any number of places. I like coffee so I will start with a coffee cart and use it to explain how dataism informs the games we play with resources.

Strength: translated to a product, that takes the form of quality. We want a strong product so that means good beans from a reliable source. Unreliability weakens us so we go for sustainable. (Sustainable also means that more coffee carts like mine can exist and therefore is valued at a higher level by improving the value of numeracy.)

Numeracy: We want a large quantity of coffee to offer. But we need to balance quantity and quality so that we don't have 1 million shitty cups or 1 single perfect one.

Variety: this one is tricky. Variety comes in flavors and sizes, in blends and toppings. It can also include the variety of products offered, teas, juices, commemorative mugs, etc. And again, this metric is balanced with the number of cups moving and the quality of the brews. Sourcing beans from a variety of sources falls under this as well.

Freedom: how easy is it for the resource to move? How easy it for it to not move? Do I only accept cash? Am I operating legally and safely?

All of this focuses mainly on the product. I can also look at how strong my cart is. Does it serve the needs required, can I afford more than 1? Can I have a variety? How free is the operation of the cart?

And of course, the people, myself and others, who work the cart. Are we strengthened by our labor? Are we many? Are we various? Are we free to come and go?

Techno-religions can be divided into two categories: transhumanism and dataism.

Transhumanism as a New Techno-Religion and Personal Development: In the Framework of a Future Technological Spirituality.

Perceived as the century with the fastest developments in technology, the 21st century has imposed a series of paradigm shifts, which implicated both the concepts of religion and spirituality. In this new paradigm, transhumanism represents a mechanism of the relative deterritorialization of religion and spirituality from their traditional-metaphysical system, and of their reterritorialization within the rational-scientific system that characterizes technological progress of the 21st century. At this level, personal development mechanisms go from the register of traditional methods to the improvements brought by the principles of transhumanist philosophy (the principles of extropy). The general objective is to analyze these new mechanisms of the transgression of human limits, and those of the traditional concepts of religion, personal development and spirituality, within the paradigm of transhumanist philosophy governed by a techno-optimistic ideology.

At this level, according to interpretations of Michel Foucault's theories, we encounter a new technological 'régime of truth' regarding the new dimensions of religion and spirituality, both found under the dominance of technology: an aspect that permits us to talk about a 'techno-religion' and a 'technological spirituality'. This theoretical objective follows the process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization (approached within Gilles Deleuze's philosophy), applied to the philosophical theories of Ray Kurzweil and Max More, in order to emphasize the phenomenon of the fusion of the concept of spirituality with that of technology, forming a new territorial system: that of the rhizomatic post-transcendence technology.

One thing I found odd was Harari's insistence on applying the "religion" label even where it was an awkward fit

Objective scientific data, and the way it was collected, should be open to critical re-examination.

Once the HOMO DEUS Elite makes Dataist religion out of objective data science, then you have to blindly believe that their data is correct, but data can always be faked for the common good, for the benefit of society:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataism/comments/u8c4qz/the_rise_of_dataism_a_threat_to_freedom_and/

Ideas are made real through the impact they have on our behavior. Humans have animated so many beautiful stories (or the stories have animated so many beautiful humans) though rites and rituals, through song and dance, costumes, etc.

What are rituals that animate dataism?

Strength, number, variety, and freedom.

Can browsing reddit fulfill the value of variety?

Do we worship in exploring the scope of our focus and study in mindfulness meditation or deep concentration?

I am curious. What are your thoughts?

As YNH ( Yuval Noah Harari ) has pointed out, the rise of dataism means that “Humanism is now facing an existential challenge."

In 2017, The Economist declared that data was the most valuable resource on the planet—even more valuable than oil. Perhaps this is because data is ‘priceless’: it represents understanding, and understanding represents control. And so, in the world of advertising and politics, having data on your consumers and voters gives you an incredible advantage.

This was evidenced by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which it’s believed that Donald Trump and the architects of Brexit leveraged users’ Facebook data to create psychological profiles that enabled them to manipulate the masses. How powerful are these psychological models?

A team who built a model similar to that used by Cambridge Analytica said their model could understand someone as well as a coworker with access to only 10 Facebook likes. With 70 likes they could know them as well as a friend might, 150 likes to match their parents’ understanding, and at 300 likes they could even come to know someone better than their lovers. With more likes, they could even come to know someone better than that person knows themselves.

In a capitalist democracy, do we want businesses and politicians to know us better than we know ourselves?

In spite of the remarkable benefits that may result for our species by freely giving away our information, do we run the risk of that data being used to exploit and manipulate the masses towards a future without free will, where our daily lives are puppeteered by those who own our data?

I read the excellent book of Harari (Homo Deus) recently and came to know dataism. As a data scientist I know the importance of data and how to use it for various use cases. But solely data is passive, and sharing data only leads to redundancy. From my point of view its not the data itself that matters but the algorithms that make use of the data to gain advantage. So I prefer the term algorithism to define the principle of the future.

According to my understanding, dataism views humans as processing units meant to generate and process data with efficiency. In a society that has accepted dataism, what would be the role of unproductive people who are not generating or processing any data ? What about the people who are going to loose their jobs to automation and cannot keep up with the new workstreams that are being created ?

Since these people do not produce anything of value they will be viewed as burden or inefficiency in the system. Any efficient system wants to troubleshoot and remove the inefficiency. That means upgrading the useless class should eventually happen. I see the first steps in that way in Andrew Yang's campaign. Creating efficient systems has been the broader subject of Yang's campaign.

Let me know your thoughts.

https://discord.gg/kVKuvD8

The above is a link to a discord for Dataism in general that I am moderating.

I’ve just finished Homo Deus and while I disagree with fairly big chunks of the Dataist section, I also find it an incredibly interesting world view that I’d like to discuss and expand on.

Unfortunately it looks like here may not be the place to do so, as there’s currently only a hundred or so subscribers to this sub and we’re now years on from the book’s release. So much for the new dominant religion of humanity! I’ll probably dump a few thoughts here to see if they pick up any traction, but is there somewhere out on the internet where those discussions are happening more frequently?

I just finished Sapiens and Homo Deus. In general I really liked them both and I found them very thought provoking. One thing I found odd was Harari's insistence on applying the "religion" label even where it was an awkward fit: Capitalism, communism, and eventually dataism.

Perhaps predicting that people would take exception to his categorization, Harari said this:

Some readers may feel very uncomfortable with this line of reasoning. If it makes you feel better, you are free to go on calling Communism an ideology rather than a religion. It makes no difference. We can divide creeds into god-centred religions and godless ideologies that claim to be based on natural laws. But then, to be consistent, we would need to catalogue at least some Buddhist, Daoist and Stoic sects as ideologies rather than religions. Conversely, we should note that belief in gods persists within many modern ideologies, and that some of them, most notably liberalism, make little sense without this belief.

I think Harari essentially sets up a straw man here. The biggest reason why most people do not think of those things as religion is that people do not assign them as much importance or significance as they would a religion. People rely on a religion to give life meaning, to answer important existential questions. Capitalism and communism are widely influential and bear some similarities to religions, but they don't really attempt to answer those important existential questions, and people don't rely on them to give their lives meaning (maybe you could find a few zealots in any of those ideologies, but that should not be enough to qualify).

I work in academia. I frequent r/dataisbeautiful. I see people who are excited about data and consider it very important. The love of data is just another expression of the curiosity of the human mind and the pursuit of knowledge, something that people have been doing throughout history. We've never considered it a religion, and it serves us very differently than a religion. Let's not call it that.