So tell me...what do you think is necessary for us to have world peace?
Printable View
So tell me...what do you think is necessary for us to have world peace?
I'd say destroy all humans, but then the monkeys would probably develop politics... :panic:
Major depopulation combined with a one world government.
So theres no way to obtain peace without a bunch of people dying?
Well, widespread lobotomies might be a step in the right direction.
Um how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Well, I think the only way to have world peace with the entire population still intact would be if everybody was a slobbering idiot. Even then though, they'd still fight. But it wouldn't be organized enough to call war.
What do you define as world peace? An environment in which no one on the entire planet comes into conflict with another individual?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
No wars, no major violence, people doing things in the interests of others, not themselves. As a generality, obviously its impossible for EVERYONE to be peaceful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Well every action is in the interest of one's self. That is why action is carried out, to remove a felt unease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
I think a great way to start off toward something like "world peace" as you define it is to get rid of the State. It is an institution which engages in mass violence against a group or other state. The perception is that the United States is fighting Al Qaeda in the present period but that isn't true. The "United States" isn't fighting anything. A certain group of people who define themselves as "Americans" are fighting a group of individuals who call themselves "Al Qaeda." People don't exactly think in this manner. They postulate that since these "Americans" are fighting the battle and they are also apart of the institution known as the "U.S. Government" which has domain in this geographical local and since they are under perception that the "U.S. Government" is elected by on the basis of a majority, then a majority of people in this given geographical area must support & engage in this battle. Therefore it is no longer seen as a small group but a giant mass and that is essentially what war is...mass violence.
It's hard to say if world peace will ever really be possible. Individual conflicts will probably always exist, but maybe our society as a whole will develop and mature enough in the future to become relatively pacifist. We still seem to be a stupid and destructive species at times, but I think we've come a long way in terms of tolerance and self-control from say a few hundred years ago.
The way I see it, the society we live in is like one big social experiment. Over the course of history, we've developed a lot of beliefs and ideologies (such as Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, etc), and we've tried them out to see if they work. Through the democratic process, we can pit these ideas against each other and pick the one we think is best for solving our problems. Over time, all of these ideologies go through rigorous testing and we then know which ones to keep and which ones to throw out. We don't always learn from our mistakes though, and we can sometimes keep using the same flawed methods, which keep producing the same undesired results. But if we do learn from the lessons of the past and reshape our culture accordingly, we may one day find an efficient system on which our society can run. This will enable us to tackle our many problems (like poverty, unemployment and dwindling resources), which will hopefully lead to a more peaceful world.
By Force. History agrees with me.
Force involves violence. We will never obtain peace through violence, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
As long as we are organized on the state level, our violent tendencies will manifest themselves on the state level (in other words... be blown massively out of proportion).
I think violence is in our DNA. That's not an expert opinion, but it's not a wholly uninformed one either. Furthermore, I have reason to doubt that total nonviolence is a productive goal. But like I said, violent tendencies don't have to be magnified by the state like they are.
http://troll.me/images/bert/mind-blown.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Get rid of everyone besides hippies and beauty queens?
Unfortunately, it just seems like human nature. I don't think world peace is a possibility, unless there is a massive transition in thought/consciousness as some people think will happen in 2012, and that just isn't likely at all. I'd say people are 90% more likely to wipe themselves out than achieve something like world peace.
I think it will take something really bad to happen before people start waking up. Unfortunately.
Wait, are we talking about humans in this thread?
As we are now that goal is not achievable. People cannot even live in peace in a little house that is full of cameras and booze.
First contact.
One of the keys to problem solving is to clearly define the problem first. Often by doing this the solution presents itself. The original question is way too vague and nobody has really defined what would constitute a real and realistic solution. It's also the kind of phrase that people don't usually use when they want a real answer, but just to pessimistically bemoan human nature or dream unrealistically of some distant utopia.
I'm getting tired of hearing about how flawed human nature is. Don't we already know this? And is it really only human nature that makes us violent? Isn't violence a basic component of life itself? In order to live, isn't it always necessary for one thing to feed off the deaths of others- animals and plants alike? Some are scavengers benefiting from the random deaths of others, some are parasites or predators. But at root, life itself grows from death. Even plants need soil to root in, and soil is essentially dead plant matter for the most part. And yet we bemoan human nature as if the rest of nature is blissful and idyllic!
It is true that since achieving consciousness of a human level we've become a lot more adept at destroying other species and displacing them to build our homes and cities, and at killing each other and doing collateral damage to each other for profit or greed or necessity.
Sometimes I have to laugh when I see one of those cheesy sci-fi movies from the 50's where the whole message is that there's a galactic federation of peaceful aliens and humans as an emerging species are too warlike to join and must be eliminated. It seems childishly simplistic. I suspect if there were a galactic federation the other species would be just as warlike as us if not more so. Hell let's face it... the whole REASON we became the dominant species is because we became the most efficient species at killing and at using the resources around us for our own benefit - even if those resources were already in use by wildlife or another race of humans. So yes, violence and destruction is in our nature, as it is in the nature of all living things, and I don't believe it would be a realistic possibility for the human race to exist without doing violence or destruction. We'd first have to become completely unnatural.
Growing technology has made it possible for us to destroy the world many times over. Somehow we still haven't done it. Other technology has also allowed us to accidentally or purposely destroy habitats of entire species. We sometimes do and sometimes don't. As we were developing this technology our attitude was one of progress and prosperity. It's changed now, and we've become much more aware of our responsibility - but unfortunately it's already too late in most respects to dismantle the technologies that have been wreaking havoc on ecosystems... the automotive industry and factories, nuclear plants etc. And if it were possible, would we? Doubtful in most cases. Governments depend on oil politics in order to continue to exist, and no government will willingly destroy itself for ecological or utopian purposes. Our burgeoning civilization has massive systems in place... governmental, transportational, waste disposal, etc... infrastructures I believe they're called, that can't just be destroyed overnight and new ones built. It would uproot entire cities and be cost-prohibitive. I know I'm going beyond the topic of world peace, but I'm trying to keep it in a realistic perspective... we can't just make changes without utterly devastating the systems we have already in place.
So in order to more realistically answer the original question, it becomes a matter of more clearly defining what would constitute a possible level of peace. Does peace require some degree of force? Of course... unfortunately there are differences between people, and they're going to fight over these differences. Racial, sexual preference, political affiliation, some are poor while some are rich, some don't even have the basic necessities of life while some waste them ridiculously.
Alright, I'm losing my focus and don't know what else to say, so I'll just stop here.
Like x300
Thank you!
Theres a difference between violence in order to survive, and mass violence and genocide in order to further ones interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I disagree. I do not believe that any race can become advanced enough to travel light years distances and amass the amount of technology that we think aliens have, while still being a violent and greedy society. We are using our resources so exponentially fast that they will be gone way too soon. Its estimated that in 50 years we will be out of most of oil. We are polluting and destroying our planet, destroying ecosystems, and harming the health of society because of the greed of corporations. We are constantly finding ways to get into wars, mostly because of oil or just to flex our American muscle. There are other wars going on in the world because of self interest constantly. And we have the ability to completely destroy our planet many times over. As we advance we will only become more violent and our kill capacity will increase. At the rate at which we are advancing, eventually, if we do not become peaceful, we will destroy ourselves. It is guaranteed. We cannot keep doing what we are doing. So I do not believe that any race which is hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us could still be like us in violence and corruption. They would have to be enlightened to get that far. Yes violence is in our nature, we are after all animals. But I wouldn't call violence human nature, I would call it animalistic nature. Greed and corruption is human nature. And peace and selflessness is human nature on a higher consciousness. For us to become peaceful we have to be enlightened to a higher consciousness. Just because violence is in our nature does not mean it is right. All it means is that its harder for us to be peaceful but if we do become peaceful, then we are no longer animals, we can truly call ourselves intelligent, enlightened, civilized people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Completely disagree. The only reason we have not destroyed ourselves with nuclear weapons is just pure sheer luck. We have come close so many times and we are still on thin ice. The danger of nuclear destruction is not even close to being over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Again I disagree. We don't sometimes detroy habitats and sometimes dont. WE always do and we are doing it more and more. As we are continuosly polluting, deforesting, and destroying the enviorenment just to fill our pockets with cash, we are destroying thousands of species. Scientists believe that we are in the 5th mass extinction of animals. I wonder why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
And we are definetly not developing an attitudde towards progress and prosperity. We are not more aware of our responsibiity. Some are, but there are still too many who will only do what serves the interests of the wealthy and corporations. Which in turn causes negative externalities that we the people must pay.
We do not have to destroy the system or uproot society in order to achieve progress. We just need to start making decisions that serve the interests of the people, help bring about peace, and don't cause harm to other living beings or the enviornment. We obviously can't do it overnight but the excuse that it's not possible or that it is cost inneficient is bullshit. It is possible, and it may be cost prohibitive at first, but eventually it will actually cause us to prosper. Green technology is a huge oppurtunity for wealth, working to help the poor will obviously help everyone become wealthier, and of course stopping wars will cause a boom in the world wide economy. TA report in May 2011 on the Global Peace Index highlighted that had the world been 25% more peaceful in the past year, the global economy would have benefited by an additional $2 trillion, which would account for 2% of global GDP per annum required to mitigate global warming, cover all costs to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, cancel all public debt held by Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and cover the rebuilding costs for the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
So basically, peace is possible but it will take us to take action. We must stop doing what is just in the interest of money but what is in the interest of people. We must help the poor and needy, we must make decisions that benefits the majority not the wealthy minority; that help improve human equality not degrade it, that help improve the environment not destroy it, and that protects the rights and lives of people, not take them away. Once we have a society that's main focus is that, then we can have peace. You may say it's an unrealistic utopian dream, but its not. We just have to take it one step at a time, and always work in a progressive way, and not use excuses such as its not possible or its cost prohibitive, or say we've already done enough.
Most major civilizations were founded by force. Now all we need is one big global force that can make this all good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
Yes and all major civilizations end up falling as well. And how does the founding of a major civilization equate peace? Civilization in the modern world just means we have technology. We are by no means peaceful and force will never cause peace. You can continually kill people until they do what you want, but do they really believe in it? You can't destroy an idea through strength of arms. And people will always fight back.
We need aliens. :)
The aliens will first need to do an attack on earth with us unprepared. Everyone will hate the aliens for attacking us and unite for the purpose of destroying the aliens. WORLD PEACE (in terms of on our world no one wil be fighting each other)
But world peace could only last as long as everyone is against the aliens that attacked us.
This was the most realistic possibility I could think of for world peace
If aliens were somehow hostile, which I do not believe they are, we wouldn't be able to unite to defeat them. They would be able to wipe us out before we would know what's happening. Life isn't like Hollywood.
Well for my situation we would need more advanced technology, but I still believe that uniting against some other planet is the only possible way for world peace, with it lasting at best 5-10 years.
What if we used a combination of hardware, software and lucid dreaming to show everyone that we are in a simulation designed to improve the quality of consciousness. And that it can be done just as well, if not better, in peace.
one love
lol this sounds like a way to form nwo. false flag alien attack by government. to make everyone agree to for one world government to fight the aliens that aren't really attacking us.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinRic
ScapegoatQuote:
Originally Posted by saltyseedog
I also thought of government conspiracy as I was writing it, but my main thoughts were of Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and (sorry for the nerdiness) Gundam 00
...gundam seems so out of place there
Lol well you better hope we never go at war with aliens, because if we do, were screwed.
Ya, I know, we will probably never be at the level of aliens, but I found it more possible than everyone magically getting along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
Not magically, through work and progress.
This is of course Assuming Aliens = Smarter than us. Who's to say they're not Cavemen I.Q leveled.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinRic
Think before you speak :p if aliens had the iq of a cavemen they would never be able to travel through space to our planet.
I have no belief at all that humans can ever be peaceful. From what I've seen humans aren't good, there will always be corrupt who get into positions of power
There may be cavemen aliens somewhere, but the ones I'm talking about are the ones that can attack us for this scenario.
Like I said before, to become advanced enough to travel to our planet from light years away, they must abandon violence and greed. If they cling on to it they would destroy themselves before becoming advanced enough.
Think before YOU speak. You're just assuming aliens come on their own will here. Who's to say they aren't slaves of another race dumping them on earth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
If they were slaves then this is completely off topic because we are talking about aliens attacking earth.
Fighting for survival? Fighting on arrival.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
That wouldn't be world peace, the world would be fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAmCoder
Atras, I'm not sure we're really on the same page here. You seem to ascribe a lot of conclusions to me that I didn't really make. I can understand why though.
Let me say this - in the first paragraph of my post I said that a key to problem solving is to clearly define the problem first, and most of my post was simply an effort toward that. I wasn't really making any judgements or drawing conclusions... I was simply trying to define terms and ideas more clearly to help begin conversation. I tried to make very balanced statements with no real positive or negative judgements. It seems that you took much of what I said as judgements. I don't say this as any kind of accusation... I just want to try to clear up a misunderstanding.
Of course... completely agreed on that. We can't include genocide as a basic part of human nature though, can we? As far as I'm aware it's only a handful of fanatical madmen leading fanatical followers who have attempted genocide. Well, against human races anyway. I just realized you might mean extinction of animal species too. Again though, I don't believe that the desire to wipe out animal species is a component of human nature. I think it's the soullessness of huge corporations that want to relentlessly increase their power and earnings that proceed with their projects even when it could endanger a species. And while this mass corporate greed is of course an effect of humanity, it's people en masse, which as we know a crowd will act very differently than an individual (mob mentality). Individuals have a conscience (at least most do) - crowds don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
Mass violence - war - destruction on a huge scale. I also don't believe these are inherent traits of human nature. I've never committed any of them. Have you? No person I know has. It takes large groups of people to do these things. So again, I say it's not an inherent part of human nature, but rather a side-effect caused by political groups and mob mentality. When soldiers go to war they're not trying to wipe out other humans (for the most part anyway) - they honestly believe they're making a necessary stand for their own country or group - defending it against attack or whatever. Yes, there are a few small fanatical groups who WANT to destroy other people out of fanaticism, but I believe this is human nature TWISTED by bizarre religion beliefs or hatefulness. Not really what I'd call an essential component of human nature.
And yes - I do realize that even in the less fanatical wars there are people near the top making horrible decisions and sending those soldiers off to war. But I believe even the generals and politicians who create the wars are responding to immense pressures and believe that what they're doing is RIGHT and necessary. "We must wage a war in the middle east to control oil interests or our entire Western way of life will come to a terrible end". Countries, political systems etc... these are also infrastructures and are too complex now to just erase and start over in any simple way.
And again.. I AM NOT saying that it's OK for these generals and politicians to create wars that they believe are necessary.... or for the soldiers to line up in patriotic ranks to wage those wars. But I'm saying there are understandable reasons why it's done, and until we can somehow remove those REASONS, I don't see how we can end these kinds of wars.
Calling these things "human nature" oversimplifies their extreme complexity, and does not help toward a solution.
But please understand - I am NOT saying that this behavior is acceptable!!! Not AT ALL!!! I totally agree with you that it should and MUST be eradicated if at all possible! I'm merely trying to say that I don't believe we can call genocidal tendencies a component of human nature... just a tragic and reprehensible effect of today's burgeoning technologies and corporate greed. I guess I'd say it's Corporate nature, but not really HUMAN nature. Maybe only a semantic difference though. But I believe it does tie in with the prevalent ideas expressed above that in order to achieve peace, it would be necessary to downsize the human race. Smaller groups of people and enough resources for all would be a huge step towards peace!
Obviously on all these issues we're in total agreement. I said all these things in my original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
[QUOTE=Atras;1732702]
As we advance we will only become more violent and our kill capacity will increase. At the rate at which we are advancing, eventually, if we do not become peaceful, we will destroy ourselves.[QUOTE]
... we probably will. Though if we're lucky there may be small groups of survivors who can begin over at a more primitive level and without advanced technology. They may be able to live in relative peace for many centuries until they again reach the level where they can destroy the human race or the planet.
We probably will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
Ok, I see the point you're making. And I must agree. Any highly technologically advanced race would have to be enlightened to survive their own potential for destruction. Possibly it happens when the majority of the populace is destroyed and, as the saying goes, the meek inherit the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
I can't agree with this statement in this form. To say greed and corruption is human nature implies that it's ALL of human nature. I don't even agree that greed and corruption are a part of normal human nature. I believe they're a sort of perversion of human nature. Not everyone is greedy and corrupt - and not even everyone who's in the position to BE that way becomes that way. People have good in them as well as bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
Ah ok - now I see the main thrust of your viewpoint!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
And I absolutely agree... in order to have peace (more peace than we have now) would require a lot more people become a lot more enlightened. The problem of course is... how to achieve this? You can't make people become enlightened. The vast majority of the population scoffs at the very word and considers it highfalutin' bullshit. Also there are people who consider themselves extremely enlightened and who believe in exterminating infidels and heretics. Unfortunately many people who are interested in enlightenment are religious fanatics. I'm just trying to list a few realistic obstacles that need to be considered. Though you are right... real and widespread enlightenment would be necessary in order to attain peace. I'm just not sure I believe that's a realistic goal in any way shape or form. Heh ok, that was a judgement!
You don't agree that we haven't destroyed the world many times over? :shadewink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
Heh ok, sorry that sounded a bit sarcastic. But I didn't say WHY we haven't destroyed ourselves... I only said that we haven't. You drew an inference from that and ascribed it to me and then proceeded to disagree with it. Come on... it IS a bit funny!
We do not always destroy habitats! In many cases where that's an option an equitable solution is found. You seem to see humanity as nothing more than a relentless killing machine chewing up the world. It does sometimes resemble that, but I feel that's unfair. Many corporations are going increasingly green now. Logging companies usually reseed so that the forest grows back, and strip away forest in such a way that not all of it is destroyed - they leave enough to preserve at least a degree of the ecosystem. Then they'll return in a decade or two and cut away the old growth trees they left last time, leaving the new growth to prosper. This actually supposedly stimulates the ecosystem in some way (ok, I don't know a lot about it... as I was writing this I realized I don't have any facts to back it up, but I have heard this is true). We now have hybrid cars which cuts down on carbon emissions (a little I know, but it shows that auto corporations are working toward a better model). I just don't share your apparently pessimistic view of corporations, though I do agree that many of them are evil and destructive on a vast scale. But not all, and it seems that many of them are learning to at least begin to work toward solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
To me this sounds like a major uprooting!! All of the political, social, economic, educational etc systems currently in effect are very petrified and resistant to change. I do not believe any of them would easily change without some major impetus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
I don't think I said it's not possible did I? Or did you mean "their" excuse? I totally agree that things should be changed even though it wouldn't be cost effective in the short term - but the problem I was trying to point out is that no corporation or established system that depends on profit is going to make cost-ineffective decisions! It would threaten their very survival!! No company wants to destroy itself. So the problem I was trying to point out was that we need to find some way to achieve the goal but we must keep in mind that these are the kind of powerful resistances that we face. I agree they're bullshit, but saying that accomplishes nothing. I was simply presenting these as subjects to be discussed - trying to help define the question more thoroughly. Heh, and as much as I agree with your sentiments and dismissive attitude toward these problems, they're very real and can't just be waved away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
No, I don't say that's an unrealistic utopian dream at all. I was saying that usually when people use the term "world peace" they're just talking about some dreamy utopia without actually defining specifically what peace is or what steps could actually be taken to achieve it - OR that it's used the opposite way, in a pessimistic diatribe basically just saying "world peace is impossible" blah blah blah. Heh you know, the view you seem to think I hold. :cheeky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
In your last paragraph here I think you've come a lot closer to defining what would constitute a realistic goal. I would go further though. "help the poor and needy" for example is extremely vague. We know it's impossible to completely eradicate these problems, barring some technology that currently doesn't exist or some miraculous sudden change in government policies. What amount and type of help would you consider possible and would constitute a real solution? Obviously there are many organizations already working to help the poor and needy, and obviously more can and should be done. Some of those organizations are actually scams and some fail to actually get money or food to the poor and instead end up lining pockets of wealthy people via various shady deals. Personally I don't know of any way to improve that situation though. It would essentially require complete restructuring of government and a close cooperation between nations on a level that's hard to imagine unless things change drastically somehow.
Again, please don't think I'm just knocking your ideas!! I'm not AT ALL... I completely agree something must be done... but I just don't know what or how.
Whew!! Too much typing. For all I know, the problems have been solved already while I was writing this!!! :panic:
A common goal or enemy.
Wow thank you for a very intelligent response dark matters. I completely agree with almost everything you said. I think I may have misunderstand your first post a little bit.
Thank you for reading it!! I doubt many will! :lol:
And to be fair, I think I failed to make myself very clear in the first post. So your response helped me to clarify it better.
I realized toward the end of my massive wall-o-text that I guess my belief is that the problem is too complicated for any single solution and probably the only possible way to work toward it is by various different groups doing what they can when the can. Sounds pretty lame I know.
But I also believe that most likely at some point we will destroy most of the human race and most life on earth, but that a few straggling survivors will crawl out of the radioactive wreckage and begin to repopulate. Heh... we'll actually be giving them a huge genetic boost thanks to radioactive fallout - the mutations that survive will be powerfully mutated, making them at least quite different from any species currently in existence. The earth has already changed hands from dinosaurs to humans. Who's next? Imagine a mutant cockroach civilization... :shock:
You can "found" things with force, but you cannot cultivate it with violence. People just won't have it. How can you ensure that this global force that has power to submit everyone else under its rule can be just? How do you intend to choose such institution, who has a right to claim such throne? History has proven that humans cannot handle power. As Atras said, you can never achieve true victory by bloodshed. You can destroy people, civilizations and nations, but it is hard to eraise memories. Hatred and revenge will just spawn a circle. And it will bite you in the ass eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
Free trade. When people are freely trading goods and services to each other, they are less likely to want to harm each other as it would go against their best interest. If you are selling stuff to someone, why would you kill them and risk losing all that money? And if you are getting stuff in return, why risk losing all the products that you want or may need?
You might say that people don't want to trade and would rather invade and steal it, but if given the choice people will usually rather just trade which results in a better profit, since wars can be extremely expensive. It is when you cut off trade, and refuse to talk to people that problems begin to come up.
Everyone has some resources that others do not, and improving trading all across the world would likely result in a much more peaceful relationship between each other.
Really any type of connection you can build between countries will make them more peaceful. I bring up trade specifically, because trade is more stable over the long term. Unlike say, combing all our currency into one, like the EU did. That caused a lot of problems, but there are not wars in the EU like there once was. If you go back a few hundred years ago, they were always fighting, nonstop. Both World wars started in Europe, they were as bad as the middle east.
Economic benefits are what people look for first, but anything will help. That is why people are so intersted in gaint one world governments. The problem with that, is that they want to force stuff on people, and forcing isn't peaceful and it doesn't work.
No one wants to really get involved in anything, unless they get a benefit out of it, and they definitely don't want to be involved by force. Which goes back to the trade, where people come together for mutual gain.
We'd need to change human nature. It's not built into human nature to "fix" human nature, either, unfortunately.
Just love everyone as much as you can. People aren't misguided, but ideas can be misguided. If they are influenced by poorly-established ideals, they will be likely to be seen as "misguided" themselves.
Now it may sound a little idealistic myself to say this... but love conquers all. (If it doesn't, we should just impose a global 1 child policy.)
They already did :| and nuclear weapons! :panic:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I mean, we do eat bananas...
Yes, the atheist's worst nightmare.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_96Kvbam55y...ort+banana.png
I agree if we every do obtain world peace, we would together make technology beyond imagination. But wouldn't that lead to more battles across the galactic? I mean we worked together to make technology....we could easily work together to destroy.
You still have to take into account of having to develope a whole new system of economics, and the fact that not evrybody wants to be united together. It is a near impossible idea that would take MANY years to achieve.
Atras, if you want to obtain world peace you will need to:
1. Fill every person's needs. Every person on earth.
2. Educate every person on earth so we'll learn that we are equal, and we don't have to be better that anyone.
3. DESTROY ALL MONEY! The elders call it "the eye of devil" for a reason...
4. perfect parenting and school.
to better understand me watch this awsome movie: ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011 - YouTube
Define "perfect". Your definition will not be the same as mine, I bet :PQuote:
Originally Posted by pichulick
perfect parentin- teaching kids the true human nature, not bloking their progress with:"it's meant to be like that" or "because this is normal" or " you can't do that". to teach the kids not to be egoists, and greedy, etc. not to speak of child abuse...
And schools must invest a lot in education, they need to teach kids DISCIPLINE, because a kid cannot learn if he is threatened by other mean kids, and so on... you know the stuff...
What if someones need is to kill and hurt other people?Quote:
Originally Posted by pichulick
There are varying opinions on "true human nature" though. Some say it was God, some say man is here after a series of events that brought rise to life on earth.
I think first we should strive for a sustainable world before a peaceful one, though. We have far greater need to achieve sustainability than peace at the moment!
I think he means needs as in basic necessities; food, water, shelter, sanitation, healthcare, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unelias
I think sustainability will bring some level of peace. But I agree, one step at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
I agree. But parenting needs to be completely reformed. Parents shouldn't just teach kids whats right and wrong, but they need to teach them to understand it. Saying, don't do this or you will be punished may make the kids not do it, but they still may think its ok. You can't destroy ideas with threats, you can only temporarily suppress them. Also parents need to not be afraid of letting kids experience the world as it is. Parents like to trap their kids in a little bubble because they wan't to protect them, but that's a mistake. The kids are gonna face the real world eventualy, better they face it while they have someone to look after them and be there for them then when they're their on their own. Also, parents shouldn't be afraid of letting their kids make mistakes. Mistakes are what create progress. WE learn from our mistakes and do better the next time. Kids need to learn the real consequences of their mistakes, not the fake ones where parents say "if you do this you're grounded". Parents need to stop being so authoritarian and act more as a mentor who helps kids grow, not just tells them what to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by pichulick
Also, the typical thing parents say is "you may not understand or like it now, but later on when you're an adult you will understand why I'm doing this" is not always a good argument. Kids need to understand, and I know its very hard to get kids to understand, but you have to try. Just saying I can do whatever I want because they're not gonna understand anyways isn't good. It should be a goal to help kids learn to understand, not just blindly accept. And also I think religion shouldn't be shoved down kids throats. Parents can teach their kids about religion and tell them about their religion, but nothing should be shoved down their throats and kids should have as much as a choice and opinion about religion as their parents do. They shouldn't be forced into believing a religion. That only makes kids accept things more blindly which is what causes a lot of ignorance in the world.
I agree with all what you say Atras. :goodjob2:
I have read most of these posts, but not all...
Put simply, my view would be: create a society built to improve itself.
To explain that further: an idea similar to pichulick's where from a young age, people are brought up with Buddhist-like beliefs of self improvement and inner peace and also taught the importance of 'do unto others...'
Not to put myself on a pedestal, but I like to think that I do what's right, because it's right.
A society needs to be created where everyone did what they knew was right, because they wanted to, and not because they'd be punished if they didn't.
Completely agree. And just as you said, not to be arrogant or anything, but I always try to do whats right because its right. And people from a young age need to not only learn that, but understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSkies
They already have war in parental primates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
You got two kinds of primates, tournament and parental. Humans are inbetween. Tournament species have large males that migrate between groups of females. They females raise the children of the best mate they can find, the male has indiscriminate sex with anything that moves. Parental primates have the females migrating between groups while the males raise the babies. Because the males are all related, they're less competitive with each other and more competitive with other groups of males.
The only way for world peace is for every single government in the world to be a Nationalist government, there would be peace both within and between nations.
People will stop waging war against people who are strongly different from themselves and promote it with pride? Like Nazi Germany did. As did most of the other civilizations before it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
EDIT : There could most likely never be a single government. There are too much of people and too much of differences between them. Also, scars of history run deep. Beside, I doubt that kind of goverment would not last long. If all the people of the world would be its citizens... I can imagine the bureucrachy...
Germany wasn't Nationalist, it was national socialist.
Why would a nationalist government invade another country? It would be a waste of money that could be used to improve their own nation. Plus it would be against the principle of interfering with other nations affairs.
We need a dictator and thats me!! FORWARD FELLOW SOLDIERS OF THE SWEDISH EMPIRE!!!!!
Appe96 : You are couple hundred years late. ;)
Thatperson : Of nationalismToo bad this is how it usually works.Quote:
It can also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, or the belief that one state is naturally superior to all other states. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a 'homeland' (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures
For Nazi Germany, the main tool of Hitler and the leading organs of the nation was to use German heritage and ancestry to fuel the nation. Hatred was focused on non-German races. Nationalism was the main propaganda for both WW1 and WW2 and many wars before that.
Wars are essentially always waste of money, if you look it that way. People have waged bigger wars for less and for longer periods. Besides, what if wars are started to ensure the greatness of nation? I have doubts that principle of interfering would stop that. People who ride on the high horse have seldom patience or understanding for those who are trampled below.Quote:
Why would a nationalist government invade another country? It would be a waste of money that could be used to improve their own nation. Plus it would be against the principle of interfering with other nations affairs.
If all nations were heavy nationalistic then conflict were sure to arise. "We" are superior but "you" are not.
Nationalism does not equal peace. I don't think you completely understand what nationalism is if you think it will lead to peace. It was Germany's nationalism that lead to the holocaust. It's the US's nationalism that is keeping us in a never ending war and has caused us to engage in so many wars in the past. It's North Koreas nationalism that makes them constantly threatening other countries with nuclear war. It's the intense nationalism in the middle east, especially in Iran, that fuels their hate for Israel. Nationalism involves a superiority complex. IT does not mean that a country just concerns itself with itself and ignores everyone else. Nationalism doesn't necessarily guarantee war, but it DEFINITELY does not guarantee peace. One of the most important uses of history is to learn from our mistakes so that we don't make them again. Well, from looking at history, more times than not nationalism has lead to violence, not peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
The US is hardly nationalist. If it was it wouldn't give billions in foreign aid to Israel and others. A nationalist country wouldn't bow down to the Israeli lobby. In the UK for instance, it was the non-nationalist parties that took us into, and continue to maintain our position in foreign wars, whereas the Nationalist party (BNP) would withdraw us. Interference into other countries is a threat to peace, so not interfering with other countries is what will bring world peace.
Are you kidding, the US is very nationalist. I live there, I would know. The only reason we give foreign aid to Israel is to protect our interests in the middle east, considering that Israel is one of the only non-Arab countries there. The US never gives foreign aid because of the kindness of their hearts, there is always something in it for them. And just because a country gives foreign aid does not mean at all that it isn't nationalistic. Nationalistic countries are allowed to have allies also. Speaking of Israel, Israel is also a very nationalistic nation, a nation that is constantly fighting with the Palestinians. And thats great that the BNP wants to withdraw from war, but things become a lot different when a country actually BECOMES a nationalist state. Obviously no political party is going to say that they wanna be warlike. But alot of times it does happen when countries become too nationalistic. And like I said before, nationalism doesn't guarantee war, but it definetely does not guarantee peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
How to obtain world peace?
Would this help to bring strong change across the world?
---------------
THE L.A.S.E.R.S. MANIFESTO
To Every Man, Woman & Child...
1. We Want An End To The Glamorization Of Negativity In The Media.
2. We Want An End To Status Symbols Dictating Our Worth As Individuals.
3. We Want A Meaningful And Universal Education System.
4. We Want Substance In The Place Of Popularity.
5. We Will Not Compromise Who We Are To Be Accepted By The Crowd.
6. We Want The Invisible Walls That Separate By Wealth, Race & Class To Be Torn Down.
7. We Want To Think Our Own Thoughts.
8. We Will Be Responsible For Our Environment.
9. We Want Clarity & Truth From Our Elected Officials Or They Should Move Aside.
10. We Want Love Not Lies.
11. We Want An End To All Wars. Foreign & Domestic (Violence).
12. We Want An End To The Processed Culture Of Exploitation, Over-Consumption & Waste.
13. We Want Knowledge, Understanding & Peace.
14. WE WILL NOT LOSE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT LOSERS, WE ARE LASERS!!!
------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3RIyJ9fx_k
Yeah! You win.!Quote:
Originally Posted by Galvatron
That requires a WHOLE lot of responsibility. Most people aren't willing to put in the effort... SOME, many, are. But unfortunately with dwindling resources and sustainability failures... we probably won't get there.
Sad thoughts make me sad.
Yeah, well that's why its our job to spread awareness, more people aware of the problems we face and the solutions that are needed, then the more people who will actually act.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Lebensraum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
I don't know about you people, but I would not want to live under one government. Hell, I don't even recognize myself as true European even though we are in EU. I recognize myself by my nationality first, a part of northern countries as second and maybe, just maybe an European as third. It would be practically impossible to make people accept one government. I'd never want that.
That's why we should adapt my model of government. Consensus based democracy starting in the community and working up the ranks through municipality, district, state/province and nation/federation. The law works progressively so we would agree to no global laws that can't be reached by consensus. All levels of government would be accountable to a small constituency which is accountable to their constituency, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Unelias
You can read about it here http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/balanc...-stage-121572/
can people make their own arguments without jsut posting wikipedia links. Germany during that perdiod was NATIONAL SOCIALT, not nationalist. The ideas were not based on upon German nationalism, but german supremacism. There is a massive world of difference.
Bringing up National Socialist Germany as a response to anything slightly nationalist would be like me brining up the myriad of communist atrocities when anyone mentions equality. Some ideologies of the part have been labeled as Nationalist, or Socialist when in reality, neither were.
A natural outcome of nationalism is the expansion of the nation and destruction of weaker or smaller neighbors. It may feel liberating to the isolationists but it breeds ignorant pride over generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
My opinion is mine without any reference whatsoever. Since you are very adamant at protecting your idea of nationalism, could you shed some light what do you mean by it? I see nothing good as nationalism as political idea. It is fine to be proud from your country and heritage, believe me, I am. But history has proven that when you extent that far enough you'll be looking into the barrel soon enough. While not all states were "nationalistic" by definition, they all used values of nationalism to ignite the people to their ideas. We do not have to stay in Nazi Germany, there are countless of other examples as well. You can start by opening a history book and poking blindly at almost any page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
Also I find it quite relevant to know your nationality?
I wasn't talking about your comment unelias, i was reffering to the comments bringing up lebensraum and the holocaust
There are two ideologies that are named nationalism, they are Civic Nationalism, and Ethnic Nationalism. they are quite seperate, the common element in both is that they aim to work in the interest of their own nation. Specifically I am an ethnic nationalist. The belief that the nation state should be based upon the ethnic group. Nationalism (both forms) aims to put their own nation first, which usually means an abolition of foreign aid, and in europe, reduction and a complete stop to immigration. Nationalism is also based upon the principle that each nation has the right to self determintation.
My issue was that people will often respond to nationalism with claims that any form of nationalism will inevitably lead to mass murder. This is ridiculous, because anytime someone suggests a policy left of centre such as minimum wage, I could also bring up mass murder, but that would be ridiculous.
Anyway, seeing as you asked my nationality is British.
What do you think the "nationalism" in "nazi" is doing there, just hitching a ride to add bling?
You asked what reason a nationalist country would have for invading others, I gave you one.
I dont actually see the word 'nationalism' contained within 'nazi'.
The National Socialist German Workers Party was based on a form of socialism with some nationalist and some supremacist ideas.
Naziism, Socialism and Nationalism are three different ideologies.
If everyone had their own territory, and was in mutual agreement to 'live and let live' then that would lead to world peace, nationalists tend to have this world view.
Nazism -> Nationalsozialismus -> National Socialism
National (in this context) -> adjective of nationalism
I think it's obvious that German nationalism and racial philosophy were the cornerstone of Nazi ideology and practises. If anything it's the "socialism" part that's a misnomer.
Wars are rarely caused by conflicting ethnicities; they're about resources, land, power, politics, etc. What ethnicity does is create one HELL of a compelling rallying point for a country's citizens. If your government is teaching you that your race is the best and that everyone else is subhuman scum that doesn't deserve to be within 10 feet of you, it just makes it that much easier for you to not give a shit when they invade Mahmoud for his oil or shut down Bernstein's business. And that's why nationalism leads to violence, because it breeds indifference, a false sense of superiority and lack of compassion.
You mentioned the website Stormfront shaped your ideas, would you call that place a peaceful gathering of people?
My apologies, I thought you meant me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
Thank you for elaboration, it is a lot easier to understand what you are saying now. I do understand your point of view about immigration, but the present world isn't much about ethnic purity. But how I see it, if you take nationalism as main ideology, it is just egoism in a larger playground. Not to say that egoism is necessarily a bad thing, but there are also lot of suffering people escaping wars in other countries and also international laws and protocols. There are lot of immigrants here and we have our own problems with the notion.
I have a hard time of thinking any country that does not try to act for its own interests. Everything that is done in politics is basically protection of own interests although it may not seem directly like it. Yes, foreign aid is given, war torn countries are supported. Am I right suspecting that some of your attitude comes with the current crisis in Europe? With Greece and all that?
Also, I do not see that there is any major political party that does not want nation to have a self-determination.
Well it is not about that all forms necessarily do. It is more than most of forms in history have done. The reason is very simple, it ignites hate and discrimination against other people. And it has always been taken to the extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
So, what I am trying to say is that values that nationalism embrace are fine in broad sense, but they are also values that ( at least here ) almost all major parties more or less agree upon. Only difference makes the strictness of foreign immigration. Also, when considering that the orignal topic was about world peace, I do not believe that it can be achieved by that. We can talk that we respect sovereignity of other countries, but it certainly won't stop war. You don't give very peaceful response with the attitude that says : "deal with your own shit, we won't help you."
Well that is supramacist ideology, not nationalist ideology.Quote:
If your government is teaching you that your race is the best and that everyone else is subhuman scum that doesn't deserve to be within 10 feet of you...
No actually, I've been opposed to foreign aid since at least early 2009, maybe even earlier. Although the greece thing is turning a lot of people onto that same mindset. When things were booming it wasn't that much of a concern, but now people are coming home from school 2 hours early on a friday, and peoples street lights are being turned off, this is causing a lot of concern about how governments are sending this desperately needed money elswhere.Quote:
Am I right suspecting that some of your attitude comes with the current crisis in Europe? With Greece and all that?
Stormfront is a peaceful gathering of people from what I've seen of it. In fact Since i've become a nationalist and since visiting stormfront I have become more accepting of non-whites and other groups than before.
Let me explain my specific problem with nationalism as you define it. It promotes isolationism and ignorance between culture. I don't look at government moralistically, but on the level of sustainability. Isolationism and ignorance are simply not sustainable. While I like the idea of not invading other people and ruining their culture, people do it. Life changes, things evolve. The Incas were able to dominate Andean society because they used scouts to learn from the surrounding cultures and acquire vast amounts of knowledge from the entire Continent. People with fundamentally incredible cultures succumbed to pride throughout our entire bloody history. And that's what nationalism boils down to, pride. Attachment to who you are and where you come from. It's about joining an identity greater than yourself. This is a good value but only if its balanced with understanding of other society. China invaded Tibet and approached Tibetan values from a disrespectful, stubborn point of view with a Secularist assumption that their religious traditions had no value. Europeans, lacking understanding in Native Americans, justified their slaughter and displacement by dehumanizing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
While identifying with something greater than yourself can be beneficial, you should pick the right team. Right now continuing a race war or culture war by further dividing what is already globalizing would be a step backwards rather than forwards. Rather than associate with people by race, associate with people by values and philosophy and promote those traditions.
Nationalism doesn't promote isolationism to the fullest extent (in a north korea kind of way), but does promote self sufficiency as much as possible, which leads to more isolationism than globalism, but full isolationism is neither desirable nor sustainble.
You say that I should associate by those who share my values and traditions rather than who share my race, well by virtue of the fact my values are White Nationalism/British Nationalism then those people will happen to be white :P, but yeah I understand this point, I do get on well with Black Nationalists/Seperatists as we share a common goal.
I think we have deviated from the original point with regards to world peace. Would you agree that if all peoples of the world had their own space, with mutual agreement of the right to self determination and soverignity, that this would lead to world peace?
While that would be an honourable cause, as I said before it will not last. Among other things natural resources are not even in this world, so sooner or later there will be involvement. There will be unexpected natural disasters, inner turmoil that will cause unrest in the country and people might try to flee. Also, as you count in world trade there are financical and political interests that affect other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
You can zoom back to the cold war and see for yourself. While it was much explained and excused by ideology differences, it was basically USA vs Soviets. Nation vs nation and they both thought their system and nation is the greatest. Recruiting smaller countries, forcing them to co-operate etc etc. You all know our history, so I won't babble more.
Kind of reiterating what Unelias was saying, you have to look at nature and see what would be sustainable in the natural world. I love the idea of making every nation self-sufficient to an extent. I think cities should be more self-sufficient, honestly. Cuba is a fine example of a country that turned in and became completely self-reliant as a means to cope with the circumstances they had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
But nature finds any weakspot, any opportunity, any single hole. By putting societies up against each other in a competitive atmosphere, we can observe which ones prosper and which dont and ascertain the best method of survival as a society. By nature, societies evolve to fill every empty inch. People hold something over their national identity, and that's their survival and their family's survival. If they're in poverty, they'll move to somewhere with better conditions, giving up their identity in the process. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. If the entire country gets proud enough, they will start invading their neighbors. People will get suspicious and start building up their armies. People will want to know if their armies are good enough to defend their nation and will put them in real conflict. If you do not constantly test yourself, you are just waiting to be defeated. Time beats all forms of truth and power eventually.
So I would even go as far as to say in my opinion world-peace is not preferable to sustainability.
I think the idea of every single nation in the world existing as a Nationalist state with that mutual respect of soverignity and self determination is possible, although it is a very long way off, in europe it might be possible within 30-40 years.
but there will be an extremely high level of inter-community tension. At least now the conflict is only at the borders.
Multiculturalist and even Multiracialist societies will never be peacful. In Europe the problems are getting worse year by year. Even in asia and africa there are frequent tribal conflicts.
I'd say a world of nationalist states is the only way to world peace, although how to achieve that is another matter. I just don't see any other path to world peace but i'm open to other ideas.
Edit: people often say that ignorance of other cultures and peoples causes problems, well indeed it does, but that does not stop the fact that cultural, ethnic and racial tensions will always exist until the end of time. So I see mutual respect and seperatism to be the best path to domestic and world peace.
Over time groups become larger and more complex, they do not remain the same. These tensions are the battleground through which the strongest culture survives. As weaker cultures become assimilated into stronger cultures groups move toward larger and larger social movements.
Look at gangs for an example. Many gangs start out unique to their neighborhood but expand if they're strong enough. They've got to because if they do not, some day some other gang that did expand will want their neighborhood and will have the resources to take it. This unconscious factor alone is the driving force behind war. Even religious wars waged in the name of god are just about one self-sustainable collection of traditions testing itself against another in order to become stronger so some foreign collection of traditions can't dominate later.
All i have to say is that you need to look at your history textbooks. It may start out in a positive way, but it won't last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
World peace will always be an impossible illusion. Life as we've always known has been constantly shaped on competition. With that said, I don't think there is a possible way for world peace. Our minds, hopes, and intentions are all too different to think on one accord.
Also, one race and one language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I've been saying this for a long time, but nobody seems to get it.
I disagree. I think peace isn't peace if it requires a compromise of rich cultural and linguistic variation. The standard shouldn't be that we not fight because we are no longer different. The standard should be to not fight EVEN THOUGH we are different. Plus, you can't bring about a single language or culture in a peaceful way... let alone a single race.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
edit: This may be contentious, but I prefer diversity with conflict to peace by homogenity.
Put me in control
Rich cultural and linguistic variations are what perpetuates mankind's intolerance towards instincts. The same cultural conditioning that invented religion, social status and a false sense of entitlement to compensate for its breakdown in communication; e.g those linguistic variations you're so fond of.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
But we're not different, we are anything but. This is why life as we know it is the way it is: too many individuals with no real understanding of what unity means.Quote:
standard shouldn't be that we not fight because we are no longer different. The standard should be to not fight EVEN THOUGH we are different.
Sure you can: Teach your children, they in turn will teach theirs. Natural selection will take care the rest; e.g those who will use any means to defend the current system of checks and balances. They will kill themselves off, you see?Quote:
you can't bring about a single language or culture in a peaceful way... let alone a single race.
And this is why your blood line won't survive. The answer is very simple, but most people are blinded by the aesthetic value of life, so much in fact they are literally willing to die for a cosmetic venture. :?Quote:
edit: This may be contentious, but I prefer diversity with conflict to peace by homogenity.
I'd rather die fighting cultural homogeneity (which I happily would do) than live in it. You're free to make an opinionated prediction that 'resistance is futile' but I don't think its supported enough to be reliable. Heterogeneity and peace are not mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
There's fundamentally different things going on in different cultures. You can't blanket-condemn culture itself (which you are, whether you realize it or not. Culture in its fundamental form is variation.) Some cultures are fucked, some are just fine. Trust me human culture survived for possibly as long as 60,000 years with no problems. This involved plenty of hetero religious and linguistic interface. Social status evolved way before humans did.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
We obviously are different, culture by culture. That's like saying there's essentially no difference between male and female. It's only true (and useful) on certain levels of observation, not useful or true at all in many important contexts.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
Teach your children to appreciate variation. And no, I don't see... could you explain that differently perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
you greatly and sadly misunderstand aesthetics.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
I don't have a long rebuttal for you, because what I've already said is not only easy to understand, it's extremely accurate to the point of inevitable. Sorry, but it is what it is regardless of both your and my prejudices.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
Quote:
I'd rather die fighting cultural homogeneity (which I happily would do) than live in it. You're free to make an opinionated prediction that 'resistance is futile' but I don't think its supported enough to be reliable. Heterogeneity and peace are not mutually exclusive.
:?Quote:
Originally Posted by green
Inevitable or not, its something to fight against. If one were to be spontaneously teleported to the middle of the Pacific ocean, it would matter how far one swam towards land before drowning. This I believe.
Maybe you'll indulge me in a reading suggestion: Anything by Daniel Quinn, particularly his main trilogy consisting of Ishmael, My Ishmael, and The Story of B. I know it's a rather nebulous, ineffectual move in a debate to just throw out book titles, so take it or leave it. You may find it interesting.
Or, for something short maybe just read chapter 1 in a book called Rodmap to Sustainability: Interpreting Daniel Quinn, written by Doug Brown. This talks about diversity as a key component to life, without which life is not possible. It addresses both biodiversity and cultural diversity (since the arguments for one don't necessarily apply to the other). If you're interested, it's easy to find a copy if you... um, ask me how.
I dont think thats really a good justification for the Genocide of all people of earth, (not the modern meaningof genocide which is mass murder but the original meaning, destruction of a people). To acheive this one raced world, you're going to have to find a way of getting rid of all those who want to maintain their race, which is several billion people, plus their decendants. Whats going to happen when me and my decendants disagree with your plan? Either kill them (making the idea of doing this for peace redundant) or the one race goal will have failed.
Let us assume that one day 99.99% of the world have no identity, are of no race. Those remaining 0.01% will be the most united group of people on the planet. And will be by far the most powerful, as noone else will have a sense of identity or belonging, no man is an island, apart from the 99.99% who will suffer for it.
Do you actually believe this will realistically happen, and if so why?
In all probability, they will be the only peoples that still inhabit this planet: the .01%. How powerful they are is irrelevant, as the evolution of their acceptance peaked with ego e.g in isms we trust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
I do believe it will happen, but I do not have a rational explanation as to why I believe it so. I could go astronaut on your ass, but whatever small creditability I had would simply vanish.Quote:
Do you actually believe this will realistically happen, and if so why?
All Im saying is that for as long as there are people opposed to the one race notion (and there are currently billions, and those in favour of it have some of the lowest birthrates in the world) It will be unachieveable, peacefully anyway.
When every individual obtains self-peace?
I think everyone would have to realize the interconnectedness of all life. We all depend on one another to live. We are all part of a greater system of life. We believe ourselves separate and act as if no one else matters. We cannot see each others suffering. We horde selfishly. We are self destructive and destructive to those around us. We are tools of destruction more than tools of creation. We are taught to be monsters. All we are has been taught to us in some way. We are taught that life is a competition. Survival of the fittest. We only care for ourselves. We cannot work together for the greater good of all. We have tryed before, but it is always corrupted by selfishness.
We cannot continue this way. If we do we will all die. We need to wake up. All of us. Then there can be world peace. Right now our world is corrupted by evil. We are all zombie slaves to a system that imprisons us. Everyone is suffering. Everyone is afraid. So many have given up hope. We need each other. We need to be for others what we want them to be for us. WE are all one. One being that hurts and is sick with a disease. Only together can we overcome it.
These peoples will no longer exist, though. This future isn't just a fantacy in my mind, it's ĉons of collective will; it's the apex of self awareness. You've only to search your mind for a few moments to realize it's the only logical conclusion our species can come to if it wants to evolve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
I understand why the majority of individuals want to keep the identity sacred, but that seems such a waste of potential to me. I think one race, one language and one goal isn't confined to an abstract conscious at all, but it's a legitimate, if not the only legitimate course of action left for mankind if he wants to carry on.
Actually, that view of one language-one culture of yours is entirely out of touch with nature
Nature needs diversity or else the ecosystem collapses. Mankind being natural, is no different. Diversity is awesome and it is not a threat to peace.
There seems to be no logical reason at all to assume that these peoples will no longer exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
You seem to be ignoring the billions of people, and tens of billions of unborn people who are/will be opposed to this, and that will reproduce, ensuring the survival of their people.
Because diversity as we know it has done a bang up job so far, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
If you would consider just for a moment that we might not be the only intelligent species in the universe, then you would understand why that awesome diversity you mentioned isn't very practical if we're to ever move on from this planet, which we will.
* Abstract: Ecosystem is to earth as _____ is to universe?
I'm not ignoring them because they won't exist. They aren't there, period.Quote:
You seem to be ignoring the billions of people, and tens of billions of unborn people who are/will be opposed to this, and that will reproduce, ensuring the survival of their people.
They died off because they refused to get with the program, both literally and figuratively.
I'm still not seeing the relationship between diversity and lack of peace. I see a relationship between ignorance and lack of peace. And ignorance tends to lend on the side that everything needs to be "like me" or else. This becomes the foundation of genocide, all in the name of creating a utopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
This is also why people don't like the concept of utopia. How do you create a utopia without crushing individuality?
Both "utopia" and peace need to uphold the harmony of diversity - not the other way around
Thinking about the greatness of this universe is the foundation of my body of art. And I find the endless possible forms of life extremely fascinating.Quote:
If you would consider just for a moment that we might not be the only intelligent species in the universe, then you would understand why that awesome diversity you mentioned isn't very practical if we're to ever move on from this planet, which we will.
End forced taxation.
Change "like me" into "like us". If the collective mind worked in harmony, it wouldn't act out against those who wanted to separate. They would go do whatever it is they do, and us would continue to build. It's not genocide, because we aren't killing anyone off, they've had done it to themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
In the one world view the individuality isn't sacrificed, it's given up willingly. Even then it's not completely gone, as no progress has ever been made without independent thought. So you mustn't see this view as: Rawrrrr!! We've come for the entirety of your being, try to see it more like:Do you want what we want, if so then please join/help us expand on our mutual understanding...so to speak.Quote:
This is also why people don't like the concept of utopia. How do you create a utopia without crushing individuality?
Harmony of diversity doesn't have to include aesthetics, ya know?Quote:
Both "utopia" and peace need to uphold the harmony of diversity - not the other way around.
Then get your head out of earth's ass, wipe its poop from your eyes and move the f_ck on already. :cookiemonster:Quote:
Thinking about the greatness of this universe is the foundation of my body of art. And I find the endless possible forms of life extremely fascinating.
Why do you assume the people opposed to your idea will 'die off' when we outnumber you by billions, and have a much higher birthrate than those with your philosophy, if anything those with that idea will no longer exist.Quote:
I'm not ignoring them because they won't exist. They aren't there, period.
They died off because they refused to get with the program, both literally and figuratively.
You outnumber us right now, you won't then. As more people become truly aware of their environment; become aware of what their purpose is, they will understand then accept the fact that their is a need out there greater than that of an individual's want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
We know these thing are certain:
- The existence of the divine can neither be, nor will ever be proven/dis proven.
- Evolution is the tool through which nature creates.
And since these 2 truths are the only legitimate argument for our existence at all, they will never disappear. However, if we can eliminate the redundant nature of our very existence e.g culture[s], then we will be that much closer to our *goal. We are one tribe, well we used to be. Once we leave this planet, we should probably leave our baggage behind, right? You gotta look at the endgame on this one.
*That goal is, of course exploration. It's always been our goal, it's why we came out of the sea, and then went up into the trees. Now that we've come back down and started to roam the land, do you honestly think once we're finishing exploring it we're going want to jump back into the water?
All I'm trying to say is we can't get up there thinking the way we do down here.
I'm sorry greenhavoc, I usually can follow most arguments for what they're worth.. but you're a rare case in which I think you're utterly and completely wrong. You keep making statements with no support, claiming them to be self-evident when they're not. There is no over-arching goal to our or anything else's evolution. There is no intent, no progress, no destiny, no apex. These are all classic misconceptions of evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieAnthias
I'm not asking you to follow it, though. You either understand it, or your don't.Quote:
I do believe it will happen, but I do not have a rational explanation as to why I believe it so.
Since you clearly don't understand what I've been saying, then clearly you've no reason to respond to it anymore. Pretty simple.
Misconception of evolution indeed.Quote:
There is no over-arching goal to our or anything else's evolution.
Its not that I don't understand, its that I don't agree. If I didn't understand, then I clearly would have a reason to keep responding. I see that you are putting forth a description (rather than advocating), so we should be able to talk about this with relatively level heads. I just don't think you are making much of a case, beyond saying your prediction is 'just so'. You have said that you can't elaborate on why you think your vision is 'just so' because it's self-evident. But I have my own view of humanity's 'destiny', that has undergone some x amount of scrutiny, and I'm seeing something entirely different. What have you seen that led you to this position?
"Misconception of evolution indeed"... so are you disputing what I said about evolution?
You're right, I've got nothing else to add.
Later, you.
Most people reproduce with their own, that is the default position, and those that hold this position have a much higher birthrate that those who advocate a one race world.
Personaly I found the move towards One Culture utterly repulsive, and you may be aware of the changing political landscape in Europe towards a more socially conservative nature, in response to the degredation of our cultures.
The road towards your goal actually destroys the goal, because as we move towards a degenerate, consumer mono-culture, people just dont give a **** these days about human progress like they used to, its a massive shame how few people care about new breakthroughs in science and technology, but cultural globalism (well all globalism really but specifically cultural globalism) has degenerated societies all across the globe so noone cares about anything anymore.
Explain. And I mean explain, not post something that seems profound to you and never come back to the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
It's always interesting to see how greenhavoc will weasel himself out of a conversation by posting the most inane vagaries. He's like the younger, more socially-acceptable version of Philosopher8659.
Evolution has only one goal: Adapt, conquer and move on. Repeat, forever.
I may lack the vocabulary needed to make this sound scientific...hurr, but that doesn't mean the reader won't understand exactly what I'm saying.
I say there is, my reason is common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndieAnthias
Sometimes it takes a lesser mind to reach the masses. Vague or not, it's true.Quote:
evolution is a process. The principle that guides evolution is survival of the fittest. That's where we are now. On earth we are still in tribal warfare. The tribes just got bigger.
If the principle is changed to we are all one. we would share as if we were one being. There wouldn't be wars. There is more than enough resources for everyone on earth. There is a huge imbalance in wealth and resources and we waist to much.
If your mind is at peace, your word is at peace. Peace originates within.
conflict is natural, so rather than trying to join the 7 billion of us into 1 united happy little unachievable utopia, we should try to ensure mutual respect on an international scale.
This is part of it. Most of it even.Quote:
Originally Posted by eldante
The way I see it, there are some groups out there which are peaceful in a near total sense. For example the zen mediation group I sit with. There are many other examples. There are a number of factors that make these groups peaceful, but the primary one in my estimation is that the members are are all there voluntarily. No one forced anyone to be there.
There are a number of other groups which are violent to varying degrees. This ranges from physical violence to psychological violence like looking down on people, seeing them as less than human, treating them with contempt, etc.
As long as these second types of groups exist in large numbers there will not be world peace. So the way to world peace is to slowly dismantle these groups(the second type). These groups usually make false claims; it's hard(if not impossible) to kill people or hate people without ignoring the truth of their humanity. I think the best way to get rid of them is through education. If people can think they can see through the bullshit and won't join these kinds of groups.
Many of this second type of group also gain their strength by putting down the individuals involved. They tell you you are a sinner and you can't be good without them. Or you aren't cool unless you wear nike. Or you would be killed or enslaved without our protection. They rely on the fact that people aren't in touch with themselves and that people often look outside of themselves for confidence and security. So another thing that needs to happen is people becoming more individualistic. Again more education is probably they best way to go about this.
Destroy the identity. No more names, no more aliases. You need to be recognized? Temporarily wear a symbol until it's irrelevant.
I am basing this on 4chan. It runs itself and it runs itself smoothly. I know people like to think about it as a place where people post all kinds of child porn and shit, but no. The second that shit is posted, people flip out and the mods delete it faster than it was posted.
Of course, in a real-life situation with a lack of identity, there would be no "moderators", but then again, people have more of an ability to right wrongs in real life than on the internet. In real life, if someone commits a crime and people don't like it, the people who don't like it can take action. On 4chan, the most you can do is report the thread and hope the mods are awake.
I only recently thought of this system, so I'm not exactly sure how all of it would work. I still have a lot to think about, but I'll post again if I have any more ideas to add to it.
What we should be looking at is realistic solutions to get to as close as world peace as possible. Any of these plans to destroy identity, or merge all the races, will just create conflict never seen before in the history of humankind.
Governments that are aggressors to other governments are the problem, So if every country in the world had respect for other soverignity and self determination than that would end International Conflict.
For internal conflict the only solution is Ethnic Nationalism. peoepl say that religion is the cause of most conflict, but in reality its not religion per se but the tribe/nation.
If every ethnic group had its own soverign state, and those states respected the soverignity of all others, then you have world peace right there.
Yes...let us destroy consciousness...that will solve the problem of violence because there really is no ability to gauge what is violence when one doesn't even have the ability to identify one's self.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia
And you don't see the conflict between ethnic nationalism and a respect for international law/self-determination?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
Identity and consciousness are two very different things. Just because I don't have a name doesn't mean I can't recognize myself in a mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
The problem with that is that obviously not every state is going to respect the rights of others states, or of those who don't want a part of any of these states. Palestine and Israel for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatperson
That's why I think the only way to world peace is through tribes that don't want to kill other tribes, and not only that but want to work with other tribes. And also discrediting tribes that do want to kill others or use violence, threats or coercion. Groups of people who threaten non-violent groups or individuals should be ostracized. It's not just governments that act aggressively towards other governments, it's governments that act aggressively at all. And any government that collects taxes at the barrel of a gun is aggressive. So long as aggressive behavior done on behalf of society or the government is permitted we will have war.
--
Destruction of the individual identity is a horrible idea. That would just increase people's need to find identity in groups, which would give more power to violent groups that exist and create all the wars and taxes and bullshit.
Most important things have been said already.
In my opinion we are in a stat of false world peace. Nothing really big is currently going on, but that could change any moment and negative changes are applied to nearly everything at nearly any given time. Achieving world peace wwould require some of the steps already mentioned by enough people before me here.
My question is, what does it take to achieve Unison? A state in which everyone can live and work with each other without conflict. A regenerative state, which will repair itself within society unless damaged too heavy. A state of not just tolerating, but accepting and understanding each others perspective.
The major problem I see with achieving one of these states, is that "evil" people who only lust for themself are willing to go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The "good" people who want peace however mostly go the pacifistic way, or don't fully care about the peace as much as they make themself sound. I'm going to make a bold statement: If everyone who wants peace would be willing to work with each other, and they would seriously go at it, we could have world peace, maybe even unison within years. Chances are though that's not gonna happen, unless something really special happens.