An extremist view on making a better world

First off please note I don't really believe this. I'm just taking the "evil" side to raise some thought provoking questions and get similar replies. I guess most of it is sort of like darwin's survival of the fittest.

How to make a better world (after all the ends justify the means)

1. Execute criminals and any offspring they may have. Note that I'm thinking of immoral acts. Such as stealing or killing. Not neccessarily those who break petty govenment laws. Wait... we're going extreme so throw everyone in.

2. Make our own doomsday on purpose so that we can drastically cut population and more efficiently manage resources among the survivors.

3. Create a system to manage population. Two children for every two parents. If one dies prematurely, they may have another, or another family may have three.

4. Execute those who come to divorce and their children. After all if there vow is meaningless, what hope do they have for this "perfect world"?

5. Schooling will be closely managed. Those who fail school, fail life. Deal with it.

Of course all of this has to be done behind the scenes. If it appears one government is doing this that will be an image for rebellion. I was thinking along the lines of nanomachines. People will live in fear of people dropping dead all around them so these nanomachines will also erase memories.

feel free to comment, add on to, or reject this viewpoint (explain why).

This certainly does not sound like a better world, not even an extremist better world.

Lol. Of course it doesn't. I just took that side and acted it out as far as I could go.

You have much to learn :|

(Directed at those who agrees with this)

well, I guess you could add to that list that anyone who rebelled would be killed with those nano-chip things.

If you give the government power to exterminate criminals, then all you will end up with is a population that will be docile and subservient to the will of the government lest what they do becomes criminalized.

Massive catastrophe that is foisted upon the masses only serves to break the will to survive of the masses. What you will create is a population that will do only what they can to survive, because they know that any effort they might generate to thrive might be meaninglessly swept away by a government that sees the individual as nothing more than a population statistic.

If parents are required to have only two children, they will choose their children based on the likelyhood that they will survive; meaning they will choose children that are the most docile and subservient, and will likely kill/fatally neglect children that seem to act with a will of their own (are precocious, curious, etc.).

If you execute divorcee's, you force people to wait much longer to marry and have children, since the consequences of making a mistake are much more dire. This means that every individual with have increasingly less time under the wings of their parents, and will be forced out on their own without a familial support structure much earlier in life, therefore losing opportunities to make mistakes and learn from them.

Failing school=failing life only means that the government thinks it can decide exactly what environment is right for everyone to learn. What you will accomplish is to create children who are not even necessarily good at absorbing useful information, but ones that are good at fitting into the system and pleasing authority.

This argument works whether you wipe people's memories or not. Evolution will have a natural tendency towards docility, complacency, and mediocrity.

I think there are probably people in the world, who would agree with that. People who are heavily into eugenics commonly think along the lines that we need to kill off humans in mass to bring the number of humans down, and that we should selectively sterilize or kill the weaker or useless parts of the community. The sad part is, that it isn't always crazy or fringe people who think that. Some mainstream people believe that, some people high in government think that.

Hmm. What if we put a twist on it (bear with me). What if these nano machines or machines in general replaced government? Created to make earth an artificial heaven, Stopping all natural disasters, bad memories, ect.

What if they had control to do all these horrible things (and good) Assuming this has some basis in truth wouldn't they lean towards cold logic? For a better end?

...

http://elizabethcarroll.files.wordpr...pg?w=176&h=300

That sounds like what you get when Hussein is the co-dictator of China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowy Egypt

...

http://elizabethcarroll.files.wordpr...pg?w=176&h=300

---

.

...

As thin as that book is I can't say I ever read it. So I'm left in the dark here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

First off please note I don't really believe this. I'm just taking the "evil" side to raise some thought provoking questions and get similar replies. I guess most of it is sort of like darwin's survival of the fittest.

How to make a better world (after all the ends justify the means)

1. Execute criminals and any offspring they may have. Note that I'm thinking of immoral acts. Such as stealing or killing. Not neccessarily those who break petty govenment laws. Wait... we're going extreme so throw everyone in.

2. Make our own doomsday on purpose so that we can drastically cut population and more efficiently manage resources among the survivors.

3. Create a system to manage population. Two children for every two parents. If one dies prematurely, they may have another, or another family may have three.

4. Execute those who come to divorce and their children. After all if there vow is meaningless, what hope do they have for this "perfect world"?

5. Schooling will be closely managed. Those who fail school, fail life. Deal with it.

Of course all of this has to be done behind the scenes. If it appears one government is doing this that will be an image for rebellion. I was thinking along the lines of nanomachines. People will live in fear of people dropping dead all around them so these nanomachines will also erase memories.

feel free to comment, add on to, or reject this viewpoint (explain why).

---

I don't fully understand how the extremists define their ethics and morals. Regardless the means end relationship would be the most conformist humans lacking least defects would get to populate the world, a way of weeding out the humans foible of evolutionary "gain". The rationale makes situational sense with respect to say, obvious physical defects. But those with physical defects may compensate with intelligence, and in turn creates a balance.

I think that most important philosophical question of extremism would be "Would eliminating a large percent of human beings with faults create a environment that could potentially stimulate a positive, one dimensional evolution.". The reason I say one dimensional is because, as a society, we would be populated with the human beings that solely had positive evolutionary gain; i.e... intellectual, physical, even psychological.
Unsurprisingly, we have seen the philosophical question tests true in smaller communities that are inhabited with these attributes. So for now we could say "yes" to that question.

So with that a mind, there is a "ethical" and "moral" question that entwine for a problem. Does the subjectivity of morals and ethics contradict this "problem" of extremism, or should we weigh the positives and negative gains objectively as possible for a more concrete answer. Again to be objective we need to know answers to questions that our rather subjective in nature...

Would a extremist's better world produce a heightened complacency among the human race?

Would there be more peace be eliminating the "criminal" gene.

Would having a strictly academically successful population entice a more knowledgeable, intelligent community.

So we could hypothetically conclude the question

Is heightened complacency, peace, and a one dimensionally positive evolution among a new population worth the lives of many human beings in our current one?

I believe that this is the better world that the extremist would say "yes" to. Then again what is life worth separate to the individual without any positive or negative affecting values. Anyhow...

Good thread idea!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

...

As thin as that book is I can't say I ever read it. So I'm left in the dark here.

---

No worries. :) I'm pretty sure Odd knows what I meant.

Sorry for this next part, but it's not really spoiling the book.

Executing Criminals = "Releasing" repeat offenders

Create a system to manage population. Two children for every two parents. If one dies prematurely, they may have another, or another family may have three
=
Two children-one male, one female-to each family unit. If one is Lost, the adults may apply for a replacement child.

Execute those who come to divorce and their children. ≈ Those wanting to create a family unit must apply for a spouse to determine compatibility.

Schooling will be closely managed. Those who fail school, fail life. ≡ Children will receive their Assignment in the community at twelve and will be trained to perform that task while still attending school.

Make our own doomsday on purpose so that we can drastically cut population and more efficiently manage resources among the survivors.
≡
50 newchildren are born every year. Imperfect newchildren or the smaller of a set of twins are released.

"Of course all of this has to be done behind the scenes. If it appears one government is doing this that will be an image for rebellion. I was thinking along the lines of nanomachines. People will live in fear of people dropping dead all around them so these nanomachines will also erase memories."
≡
Genetic "Sameness". People have no emotions. Medication is provided when needed, so there is no understanding of true pain. Medication is also provided to eliminate "Stirrings" (wet dreams), so sexual thoughts and feelings are also beyond comprehension.

So obviously there are differences, but your better word is like The Giver on futuristic steroids. (You really should pick it up. It's an awesome read. :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

First off please note I don't really believe this. I'm just taking the "evil" side to raise some thought provoking questions and get similar replies. I guess most of it is sort of like darwin's survival of the fittest.

How to make a better world (after all the ends justify the means)

1. Execute criminals and any offspring they may have. Note that I'm thinking of immoral acts. Such as stealing or killing. Not neccessarily those who break petty govenment laws. Wait... we're going extreme so throw everyone in.

2. Make our own doomsday on purpose so that we can drastically cut population and more efficiently manage resources among the survivors.

3. Create a system to manage population. Two children for every two parents. If one dies prematurely, they may have another, or another family may have three.

4. Execute those who come to divorce and their children. After all if there vow is meaningless, what hope do they have for this "perfect world"?

5. Schooling will be closely managed. Those who fail school, fail life. Deal with it.

Of course all of this has to be done behind the scenes. If it appears one government is doing this that will be an image for rebellion. I was thinking along the lines of nanomachines. People will live in fear of people dropping dead all around them so these nanomachines will also erase memories.

feel free to comment, add on to, or reject this viewpoint (explain why).

---

Well... That's nice... But:

1) On all the execution-remarks: sounds to me like a well unthought-through comment. If you've studied anything on criminal or unsocial behavior, then you would've known that criminal acts, divorce, etc. are not solely dependant on the person him/herself, but largely on their upbringing, their environment, their peers, and their emotional state, then you KNOW that when such an act is done, it is not a fundamentally bad trait that person has. It can be changed. It can be fixed. Why take away the fundamental right of a person life that's necessary for a society to function normally, when there's a treatable condition that that person has?
That's exactly why I think prisons and executions are bogus ideas: they completely miss the point, and ignore the REAL problem that's going on, and its solution. In stead, they substitute for that the easy way out: just get rid of the person in question, and your problem is solved...
And yet, the REAL problem is simply that people aren't coached enough to deal with the things they encounter. In this case, therefore, not the people are at fault, but the system, combined with their upbringing. Two things we could easily fixed.
Two quick things for you to check out:
Ever read about the "Lucifer effect"? Check it out...
Ever heard about the "Fast Track project"? Check it out...

2) School isn't everything. Deal with it.
School, for one, isn't about intelligence, or creativity, or inspiring people in following their passion, or remotely encouraging people to do good stuff for society, or even about shaping the persons' skills to work in society as a whole (i.e. personal finances, social skills, etc.). It is just about putting you full of information that the state thinks you need to have to be a "well-rounded individual". Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Knowledge and specialization is necessary, true... But the engine of development, of progress, is NOT knowledge. It is most of all creativity, REAL intelligence (not "Hey, I remember which city that is, I must be smart!").

I'm sure there's more I could tell... But let's just keep it at this for now. I'm not very enthousiastic about this discussion anyways... The entire idea seems rather unthought-through.

But oh well...

Have a nice day, anyhow! ^^

2) School isn't everything. Deal with it.
School, for one, isn't about intelligence, or creativity, or inspiring people in following their passion, or remotely encouraging people to do good stuff for society, or even about shaping the persons' skills to work in society as a whole (i.e. personal finances, social skills, etc.). It is just about putting you full of information that the state thinks you need to have to be a "well-rounded individual". Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Knowledge and specialization is necessary, true... But the engine of development, of progress, is NOT knowledge. It is most of all creativity, REAL intelligence (not "Hey, I remember which city that is, I must be smart!").





You have a very vague understanding of college :(.

^Yeah, I suppose your philosophy perfectly explains why those who actually choose to understand the state's "silly information" tend to gain admittance to good colleges/universities thereby ensuring that they become at least marginally successful in life, as opposed to those who just blow through school on nothing but their popularity, ultimately becoming deadbeats and moochers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

2) But the engine of development, of progress, is NOT knowledge. It is most of all creativity, REAL intelligence (not "Hey, I remember which city that is, I must be smart!").

---

One of the very greatest of mathematicians of all time was david hilbert. One day he noticed that one of his students was missing and asked another student about it. The student said that he had left to become poet. Hilbert said, "Good! I never thought that he was creative enough to be a mathematician!"

This is the dude that got around the rules about women not being able to lecture by signing up to do the lectures himself and then letting emmy noether do them instead and that told hitler to fuck himself (basically) when he said he wanted the jews out of gottingen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

First off please note I don't really believe this. I'm just taking the "evil" side to raise some thought provoking questions and get similar replies. I guess most of it is sort of like darwin's survival of the fittest.

How to make a better world (after all the ends justify the means)

1. Execute criminals and any offspring they may have. Note that I'm thinking of immoral acts. Such as stealing or killing. Not neccessarily those who break petty govenment laws. Wait... we're going extreme so throw everyone in.

2. Make our own doomsday on purpose so that we can drastically cut population and more efficiently manage resources among the survivors.

3. Create a system to manage population. Two children for every two parents. If one dies prematurely, they may have another, or another family may have three.

4. Execute those who come to divorce and their children. After all if there vow is meaningless, what hope do they have for this "perfect world"?

5. Schooling will be closely managed. Those who fail school, fail life. Deal with it.

Of course all of this has to be done behind the scenes. If it appears one government is doing this that will be an image for rebellion. I was thinking along the lines of nanomachines. People will live in fear of people dropping dead all around them so these nanomachines will also erase memories.

feel free to comment, add on to, or reject this viewpoint (explain why).

---

Ths would be Fascism; No more civil rights or freedom. All must bow for the greater goal of improving life. They must bow so deep it makes their lives hell.

Hitler wanted to make the world a better place, Stalin did too and many dictators throughout human history did. It's just the WAY they intend to do it makes life alot worse rather than better. A better world for some is no better world at all. It would be the same world humanity has known already for at least 6000 years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Ths would be Fascism; No more civil rights or freedom. All must bow for the greater goal of improving life. They must bow so deep it makes their lives hell.

Hitler wanted to make the world a better place, Stalin did too and many dictators throughout human history did. It's just the WAY they intend to do it makes life alot worse rather than better. A better world for some is no better world at all. It would be the same world humanity has known already for at least 6000 years now.

---

Well, if you kill all of the people who's lives it wouldn't improve, then you would have made a better world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Well, if you kill all of the people who's lives it wouldn't improve, then you would have made a better world.

---

A better world for who?

A world in which masses of people are killed, just because they don't quite fit into a certain system...doesn't at all sound anything like an improvement.
I don't know about you, but I value human life. In all it's diversity. Perhaps some social groups of people are indeed causing society trouble. But how could that ever be worse than to go ahead and mass murder them to get them "out of the way"? The world couldn't possibly be worse than that. And unfortunately this world has very often been just like that throughout history, continuing today.

It sounds like you're convinced a system that kills those it sees as "unfit"for the cause(whatever cause it may be), AKA:fascism, might improve the world.
Would you still feel the same way if this system decided that you and/or loved ones(maybe your family? Your lover, Maybe your best friends?) are "unfit"and a detriment/hinder to this system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

First off please note I don't really believe this. I'm just taking the "evil" side to raise some thought provoking questions and get similar replies. I guess most of it is sort of like darwin's survival of the fittest.

How to make a better world (after all the ends justify the means)

1. Execute criminals and any offspring they may have. Note that I'm thinking of immoral acts. Such as stealing or killing. Not neccessarily those who break petty govenment laws. Wait... we're going extreme so throw everyone in.

2. Make our own doomsday on purpose so that we can drastically cut population and more efficiently manage resources among the survivors.

3. Create a system to manage population. Two children for every two parents. If one dies prematurely, they may have another, or another family may have three.

4. Execute those who come to divorce and their children. After all if there vow is meaningless, what hope do they have for this "perfect world"?

5. Schooling will be closely managed. Those who fail school, fail life. Deal with it.

Of course all of this has to be done behind the scenes. If it appears one government is doing this that will be an image for rebellion. I was thinking along the lines of nanomachines. People will live in fear of people dropping dead all around them so these nanomachines will also erase memories.

feel free to comment, add on to, or reject this viewpoint (explain why).

---

They've already got this system in China or North Korea, why dont you move there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

A better world for who?

A world in which masses of people are killed, just because they don't quite fit into a certain system...doesn't at all sound anything like an improvement.
I don't know about you, but I value human life. In all it's diversity. Perhaps some social groups of people are indeed causing society trouble. But how could that ever be worse than to go ahead and mass murder them to get them "out of the way"? The world couldn't possibly be worse than that. And unfortunately this world has very often been just like that throughout history, continuing today.

It sounds like you're convinced a system that kills those it sees as "unfit"for the cause(whatever cause it may be), AKA:fascism, might improve the world.
Would you still feel the same way if this system decided that you and/or loved ones(maybe your family? Your lover, Maybe your best friends?) are "unfit"and a detriment/hinder to this system?

---

Well, if you didn't like the reforms, then you would also be killed, thus leaving the remaining people's lives improved.

this thread has posts? who the hell can take it seriously :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Well, if you didn't like the reforms, then you would also be killed, thus leaving the remaining people's lives improved.

---

People like you in Political, authoritairian positions are very dangerious.
I for one couldn't live in a mass murder society.

So what if YOU were happy and content about the reform, but your best friend or your Mother isn't and there for has to be killed?....Are you still that happy with the reforms?

I reckon the world would be a better place without people like you. Yet killing you and people like you isn't an option to me: I am no barbarian and I value human Life. Too bad you appearantly don't. You see understanding why it's immoral, barbaric and just NOT DONE to just go ahead and KILL and Opress everything and everyone that happens to be in your way....now THAT is Civilisation if you ask me. If you don't understand this you might be a psychopath... I sense a total lack of empathy from you towards your fellow human beings.

It's people with views like your's in political powerfull positions that start worldwars and genocides. It's people like you that stop all development of human societies and plunge them back into the darkages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

this thread has posts? who the hell can take it seriously

---

Gee I guess you're right once again.Why do DV-staff make such a big fuss about people sharing their Psychedelic experiences, and yet don't make a fuss about people preaching fascism and mass murder? "What if the children see THIS?" Where is that additude now? But hey if you want to follow and preach rediculous, inhumane ideologies: there are enough countries who are governed JUST like that.

Why don't you move to China and try to found a large Church and religious community there? And criticise the governemtn there. And preach Capitalism there. That should grow you the children fuck up.

Jesus, calm down guy. This thread is about a speculative extremist position on creating a better world, not an actual political discussion.

Well if you're trying to creating a better world, you're sure as hell not doing a good job of doing it. I don't quite understand the logic behind this; mass murder=a better world? Even if i subscribed to the theory that the world is overpopulated with this "virus" called humanity I would not support the massive extermination of my fellow species. Have any of the wacko Neo-Liberal-Totalitarian fearmongers who actually believe in this stuff ever taken the time to think about alternatives to just marching around Nazi style and exterminating undesirables? If you really believe the Earth is overpopulated, why not simply invest in space colonization? We already have most of the technology required, and if the government didnt have a monopoly on space exploration we'd have already established permanent bases on the moon by now.

This was supposed to be an extremist view on making a better worl. I simply took the conservative mindset and applied it to the thread. Conservative totalitarianism calls for the elimination of all 'illfit' peoples: That is, anyone who is not like you. That's what fascism is; it's what Hitler did. Hitler was German, so he believed that the Germans were superior thus the only peoples fit to survive. To create this 'better world' it was necessary to remove the undesirable population (Jews, gays, blacks, etc) so that the 'superior' race could flourish unhindered.

I'm not saying I agree with that, if that's what you're thinking :P That's ridiculous and absolutely vile and disgusting, but it IS how those people thought.