Improve the World

[Mortimer 2]

I'm making this thread because me and my friends were debating over different ways on how to Improve the world.
im quite sure that everyone has had an idea at some point of their life,so i made this thread to know others ideas and debating over how good they are.

please no bashing cause i know that can happen,like invade this and that. :report:

[whiterider]

Educate more. And better.

All the really horrible things I've seen, or experienced, people doing to other people fall under one of two categories - either brainless cunts who have no concept of the external world treating people like they don't exist; or people who meant well treating others badly, and acting in stupid ways, because they didn't understand the situation they found themselves in. The latter is overwhelmingly more common than the former.

I'm utterly convinced that, in a world where we have so much information, everywhere, available to everyone, and much of it for free; if we could make it so that people's first instinct when they don't fully understand something is to learn about it, and give people the skills to assess information critically and form an educated opinion based on all the myriad accounts and discourses that there are on almost every topic under the sun... well, we wouldn't solve serious issues like world hunger or economic instability, but people would make more informed, and therefore usually better, decisions about their words and deeds; and since humans affect every part of the world and how it works, better decisions mean a better world.

Of course, this would also increase people's skills in argument and conflict - my course co-ordinator told 300-odd law students on Monday that this course will make us able to beat anyone who isn't a lawyer in an argument, even when we're wrong; and to be careful because by the time your spouse is lying on the floor crying, you've probably gone past winning :p . So, similarly we'd have to teach people to debate - to give reasoned arguments, to give fair consideration to others' points of view, to accept that sometimes someone just isn't going to agree with you no matter what and that's ok.

I suppose, really, I just want to stick everyone in an entirely Rawlsian universe and make people think outside of their own world.

[Mortimer 2]

As long as people have diifferent opinions ,it will be hard to have a good world,get rid of frontiers and make the world one "country", giving them a world government. Equal rights, laws etc.. hypothetical, this should prevent wars, and decrease poverty(depends on the governmental system, if its socialism, a social capitalism, or communism how it was supposed to be, it could be fine. Im not talking about dictatorship or monachry/aristocracy).

I think that is good. :)

[appelsapgodin]

Kill all humans. Instant improvement.

[Mortimer 2]

Kill all humans. Instant improvement.

lol,remove humanity?

[appelsapgodin]

lol,remove humanity?Yes, we're nothing but a bunch of environment destroying parasites.

[fakepeeps7]

Yes, we're nothing but a bunch of environment destroying parasites.

That's true, but removing humanity is kind of a cop-out. Surely we can be more creative than that and come up with a solution that doesn't involve our collective demise.

[kiwi_tea]

Remove capitalism, not humanity. A robust democracy that doesn't depend on putting the greediest, wealthiest sociopaths in charge of how tolerable life is for workers would be a nice start. Put the means of production and distribution under genuinely democratic control, with a solid and explicit constitution protecting and defining human rights.

That depends on a coherent, consistent programme for change, such as that put forward by the website wsws.org.

Get science into the classroom WAY earlier. Teach basic science method - simple, easily demonstrated principals - alongside the alphabet and counting.

Human nature may be fallible, but we don't have to throw up our hands and say "Oh what a repulsive species we are".

[Oaktree]

I agree with those who say that education needs improvement, particularly in science. If we could have a more scientifically literate population, we could move forward much more quickly than we do.

Politically, though, I think we need government based on freedom, with minimal restriction of that freedom. Those who harm others should be punished, but otherwise, everyone should have control over their own property, be able to run their own businesses, be able to do what they want so long as it does not hurt anyone else. Essentially, a minarchist government.

As far as individual contributions to improving the world, I think that it varies based on a person's abilities. I plan to go into science and medicine, someone else might plan to become an inventor, or an architect, or one of a variety of other things. The best way to improve the world is to use your "powers" for good, so to speak.

[kiwi_tea]

Politically, though, I think we need government based on freedom, with minimal restriction of that freedom. Those who harm others should be punished, but otherwise, everyone should have control over their own property, be able to run their own businesses, be able to do what they want so long as it does not hurt anyone else. Essentially, a minarchist government.

Nice in theory, but the fastest road to a plutocracy as well. Not to mention tyranny of the business class and total atrophy of the middle class.

Define "hurt"?

- Is having a factory of workers on the minimum wage while living cost skyrocket "hurt", or does one use a euphemism like "creating opportunities"?

- Where does the funding come from for adequate public education/healthcare under this scheme? Are the vast hoards that inevitably go without "hurt"?

- How does democracy thrive when this system necessarily leads to a tiny minority of people owning all the world's wealth and well-being? Are those that give up and stop even voting "hurt", given they only have options who will represent business interests, not workers' interests?

- Is the pretense that wealth trickles down sufficiently to make life comfortable for all workers "hurtful"?

[Mortimer 2]

Kill all humans. Instant improvement.

But, naturally, that's too unrealistic. :blink:
The world'll probably never become progressively better; we're already stuck in a spiral that'll only end in our own destruction. If the entire world doesn't get truly serious about preventing pollution and saving the environment, we'll be as good as dead in a century or a two. But what are the chances of that? I mean, we still have nutcases that believe climate change/global warming/global cooling/whatever you want to call it isn't occurring. They'll only come to their senses when we're in the middle of the next fucking ice age. And even then they'll be screaming "FINALLY GOD HAS CAUSED THE APOCALYPSE AND WE CAN ALL GO TO HEAVEN!"

[Mistermook]

I think we need to move beyond our current restrictions of nationalism. It's just not healthy and it really doesn't even reflect the way the world works any longer. Remove borders, increase the rate of transport of ideas and allow immigration and ideas to happen naturally. We need to learn to work together as one world, not as nations. So much of the hardship on the planet happens because we only treat the symptoms of those closest and similar to ourselves. We need to find ways to treat all of the world's problems regardless of where they happen, not because of the advantage it gives us over here, but because it's the responsible thing to do as citizens of the planet. We need to begin on a world culture, and then export it to other worlds.

[Mortimer 2]

I think we need to move beyond our current restrictions of nationalism. It's just not healthy and it really doesn't even reflect the way the world works any longer. Remove borders, increase the rate of transport of ideas and allow immigration and ideas to happen naturally. We need to learn to work together as one world.

As long as people have diifferent opinions ,it will be hard to have a good world,get rid of frontiers and make the world one "country", giving them a world government.

Do you agree with me? :beer:
Red Cross and Crescent movement only need to exist because of the suffering and pain our humans cause and the rest of the things you listed make the world more beautiful, yes, but not "better" which is what this thread is all about. Also, UNESCO protects world heritage which is mostly nature because we,humans are destroying it, thus if we weren't destroying it in the first place there would be no need for something like UNESCO. :report:

[fakepeeps7]

Red Cross and Crescent movement only need to exist because of the suffering and pain our humans cause and the rest of the things you listed make the world more beautiful, yes, but not "better" which is what this thread is all about.

We cause earthquakes?

That's news to me...

[appelsapgodin]

But we are a lot more educated than say 200 years ago, and it only made things worse, not better.

[kiwi_tea]

appelsapgodin: Tell that to the mortality rate.

[fakepeeps7]

The mortality rate is not the only measure of quality of life.

But I do think we are better off now than 200 years ago. Overall...

[appelsapgodin]

Actually the environment would be better off with less people. So I think the better standard in mortality rate is making it worse. We don't need all those old people and ill kids that stay alive no matter what, only taking up money and resources.

All education has done really is make our savagery more elegant.

[el_flel]

appelsapgodin: Tell that to the mortality rate.And all the groups of people who have suffered serious discrimination and oppression over the years who now have much better rights than they used to.

[Mortimer 2]

Lack of Community. (I mean,Not for this forum)
every day, we are raised and taught to look out for number 1, be independant, and selflessness is discouraged. Really, what we lack is the ability to be dependant on others. Or rather, we lack the ability to rely on one another. In a world full of stress, scarcity, and violence, honesty and trust are more rare than rainbows and last half the duration. We consistantly lie to one another, trick one another, and con one another out of what we spend our entire lives trying to gain - a stable foundation. What we don't collectively understand or admit, is community and a stable foundation are the same thing.We go to school, or go to work and then we rush home cussing through traffic or grumbling on our bus because of how long it takes, so that we can spend the evening infront of a television set, or browsing the internet. Most of us won't know our neighbors names. We probably wouldn't even know how to make friends if we already don't have some. We've become so compartmentalized that we don't interact or socialize nearly as much as we should. Years ago, knocking on your neighbors door asking to borrow flour was normal. Now a days, you look like a fucking looney trying it. "did they seriously want flour..?"We need to re-establish what a community is and means, and learn to help one another. If you see someone struggling with anything, offer them a hand. Even if it's someone you don't know. Pretty much they'll always turn you down and that's ok. That's an enourmous step towards rebuilding a concious public. A collective humanity is far superior to a humanity in any number.

[appelsapgodin]

So we could oppress and discriminate other groups?

[Undercovers_Agent]

Well this is just me, but my occupation involves freeing many times corpses from twisted piles of steel spaghetti along side of the road as a result of a drunk driver in his Ford Ranger being so inebriated that he doesn't notice his head lights are off and that he's going down the wrong side of the highway at 98 miles per hour. Drunk drivers are my number one most hated group of all time. But in the above example, a 19 year old kid died, someone who was full of life and I had known as a really good kid, died because "Bubba" didn't learn the lesson from his last 4 DUIs.

I would really love to see a nation wide Alcohol Users Card (an AUC), so that people like "Bubba" would have to present an Electronic ID card to purchase his booze. Much like a credit card, it stores information on where the individual has been drinking, when, how much, photo identifacation, and the legal condition of the subject being able to drink. In addition information could be sent to a police data base, and into individual squad car computers, showing if the individual has been drinking or has had drug issues in the past. And what makes this great is that forging these would take a considerable amount of effort, as you would have to make a new registry for each card in a police server and a server that stores all of the base data, meaning that many blue collar workers and several white collar workers would not be able to get a forged copy. In addition, it makes it tougher for minors to purchase alcohol, as they would have to have an AUC (And you can only apply to get one once 21 or the legal drinking age) and even if they did get say a mom or dad's, the store owner would be at fault, as the owner of the card would have picture ID and would have to sign for the actual purchase.

Making it harder for people to buy alcohol (let's face it it's to easy for minors to get to, I had a fake ID when I was 15, and I know some people here likely have one too) without prohibiting it makes for a much better compromise then letting "Bubba" get on the road, and letting police be on the look out for people who have bought large ammounts of alcohol. But the good features don't end there either, say you buy some booze for your kid's party. Keeping track of large amounts bought can raise red flags in the theoretical system, like how the IRS investigates all purchases over a certain amount right? Suppose you started making a map of when and where the alcohol is bought right (Hell even what type), you can get a really good guess of what that person will be doing, especially if a person buys wine coolers a week or something like that, with personal information about you, the police, FBI, or ATF can find out your kid's ages, and if you got teens, you can bet your ass they'll be staking out your party.

Of course there are negative side effects too. As with prohibition in the early 20th century, "Moon shine" or illegaly distilled alcohol would likely become a problem, and in some places it still is. And home made distilleries are... not really industrialy inspected, and in some cases have lead in them. But, finding illegal distilleries would not be as hard, (Unless people are smart and start walking, but then its kind of hard to carry your booze) just look for the drunk people.

Comments are welcome.

[Mia138]

I agree that the key to a better world has to be education. Not just reading writing and arithmetic but more of what we used to call 'Social Studies' when I was at school (yes- many, many moons ago, I know). I agree that simple science should be taught from an early age and also languages.
We don't just need to educate our future generations in how to build and create and do the kind of physical things they will need to contribute to Society. The most important thing we have to teach them is that we are all human beings. We are all created equal. Race, religion, sexual preference, nationality, intelligence are all irrelevant to that fact. The only way this world will get better is if it becomes less self-obsessed and more tolerant.
Also the people need to have much more say in how their Society works and how it goes forward. They need to have a say in what their taxes etc are used to pay for, how criminals are punished, etc. For example, If by some incredible accident I was put in charge I would immediately cancel all space exploration and use the BILLIONS of dollars spent on that in looking after people here on our own planet and making sure they had food water and adequate health facilities. I can't understand how anyone can believe its right that we waste so much money sending rockets up when there are children dying in the world everyday from hunger or diseases which could be radically improved by spending a fraction of that money.
As for criminals (and now I just might get lynched for saying this but its my opinion)- prison should be as it was intended to be. A place for punishment and reflection. If I was in charge these big, bright, modern buildings with all mod cons would be set aside (perhaps even altered to house the homeless) and people sent to prison would sit in a 6x6 cell all day with a commode and a handbasin, a blanket and a light. They would be fed a carefully researched diet that gave them all the necessary nutrients and no more and this certainly not presented like something from a good restaurant. They would be allowed out for exercise and fresh air maybe for an hour a day but other than that no entertainment would be provided. Prison would really be a punishment. Don't start shouting about human rights either. They CHOOSE to be criminals - they have to take the consequences. If prisons were made more like this sentences could be drastically reduced ( saving money) and perhaps repeat offenders would be less keen to go back.

[el_flel]

So we could oppress and discriminate other groups?... What?

[pinketamine]

We don't need all those old people and ill kids that stay alive no matter what, only taking up money and resources.


This is probably the most selfish and cruel thing I've heard in a few days.

[Undercovers_Agent]

This is probably the most selfish and cruel thing I've heard in a few days.
Then don't pay attention to it.

[appelsapgodin]

This is probably the most selfish and cruel thing I've heard in a few days.Fun fact, I am one of those ill kids. And I never understood why I have the right to live while in other parts of the world kids die of far lesser diseases. I also got a gran that is 92 years old and doesn't know where her head starts and her ass ends anymore. In the clear moments she has she asks us if she may please, please die because she doesn't feel like herself anymore, but the body is still strong, so no can do.

You might think it is selfish, it is far from. It's stonecold realism.

[fakepeeps7]

They CHOOSE to be criminals - they have to take the consequences. If prisons were made more like this sentences could be drastically reduced ( saving money) and perhaps repeat offenders would be less keen to go back.

Before that can happen, we need to deal with racism, mental health issues, and drug addiction.

Not everybody chooses to be criminals... at least, not in the way you mean.

[Undercovers_Agent]

Before that can happen, we need to deal with racism, mental health issues, and drug addiction.

Not everybody chooses to be criminals... at least, not in the way you mean.
Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!
I DID!
I decided it would be really fun to shoplift, and fight, and and and smoke weed all day!

But yeah I got over that when my dad died.

[el_flel]

fakepeeps7 - Agreed. The problems with repeat offenders go so much deeper than just prison conditions.

[amandatea]

Actually the environment would be better off with less people. So I think the better standard in mortality rate is making it worse. We don't need all those old people and ill kids that stay alive no matter what, only taking up money and resources.

All education has done really is make our savagery more elegant.


Anyone who seriously has that mentality should be the first to volunteer themselves to die "for the greater good". But of course, they never seem to think that.

[appelsapgodin]

Anyone who seriously has that mentality should be the first to volunteer themselves to die "for the greater good". But of course, they never seem to think that.Actually, I would. I'm dependant on meds to survive every day anyway, so if the world goes to shits I'm the first to die. Reality never scared me, but I'm not going alone.. if like 1 billion volunteers go with me, we have a deal. For the greater good.

[fakepeeps7]

Anyone who seriously has that mentality should be the first to volunteer themselves to die "for the greater good". But of course, they never seem to think that.

No, because we care about our families too much to hurt them like that.

Talking about "the greater good" is all fine and dandy... but I don't think it would bring your grieving family much solace.

[pinketamine]

Fun fact, I am one of those ill kids. And I never understood why I have the right to live while in other parts of the world kids die of far lesser diseases. I also got a gran that is 92 years old and doesn't know where her head starts and her ass ends anymore. In the clear moments she has she asks us if she may please, please die because she doesn't feel like herself anymore, but the body is still strong, so no can do.

You might think it is selfish, it is far from. It's stonecold realism.


People who don't want to live, can IN FACT stop living. You have the right to stay alive, but you don't have the obligation to do so.

I don't think that having the right to live is something bad, and I would wish everyone had the posibility to live their lifes, but many people die from hunger, diseases that can be easily cured and stupid wars, that is the real problem, not ill people being alive.

[amandatea]

No, because we care about our families too much to hurt them like that.

Talking about "the greater good" is all fine and dandy... but I don't think it would bring your grieving family much solace.

I think you missed my point. People who believe that the world is overpopulated and derive ways to "fix" that - ie more killings of the elderly and sick, and abortions - never seem to want to sacrifice themselves for the cause. I believe that to be extremely hypocritical.

[fakepeeps7]

I think you missed my point. People who believe that the world is overpopulated and derive ways to "fix" that - ie more killings of the elderly and sick, and abortions - never seem to want to sacrifice themselves for the cause. I believe that to be extremely hypocritical.

Abortion and euthanasia are two separate issues. But they're both done for different reasons... and not usually for population control. Suicide is another matter altogether. Most suicides are not the result of someone wanting to "thin the herd". There is no "cause". Unless you're a Nazi or something...

[Mortimer 2]

This topic is very cool but also make me confuse (for my age) :P
sorry when i wrong,in order to change the world, i need to change myself first. :call:
I think we need a working,representative,fair,and cooperative World Government organization who can get rid terrorism etc. (something like the UN was originally envisioned to be.) :blink:

[amandatea]

Completely not the issues i'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY I'm talking about this type of mentality and people with it using those issues to help their agenda.

[pinketamine]

Maybe it could sound like that, but I was not "promoting" suicide nor anything like that, I just meant that the real problem is that the resources are not equaly divided, and some people who would want to life can't do it, just to clarify.

[fakepeeps7]

A summary would be nice. I don't have the luxury of watching a 10-minute video at the moment.

[Mia138]

Of course I don't think that making prisons more unwelcoming will make huge and immediate differences but I believe it would help. I do appreciate that not ALL criminals choose to be criminals in the strictest sense of the word but Im sure its the vast majority. I'm talking about real criminals who steal, mug, murder, rape not petty criminals, people who are mentally ill and need medical help not prison, people who can't pay fines, etc.
Its obvious that no one thing can change this mess of a world we live in into something good and growing - it would take work on a multitude of levels. This is just my suggestion for one.

[amandatea]

A summary would be nice. I don't have the luxury of watching a 10-minute video at the moment.

He's basically saying that we're overpopulated and using up all of our resources so we should kill the old and sick (which, i believe, IF a person wants to end their life because they're suffering everyday, that's their business, but volunteering other people to die is not fair) and all that type of thing. He uses exponents to explain it.

I am not saying that people don't have the right to euthanasia IF they want it, or to abortion IF they want it. I'm simply talking about the ideal that you don't think other people have the right to their lives as much as you, yourself do (i'm using the collective "you" here). And i'm not commenting on applesapgodin directly either. It's kinda like saying "well we need to help the world by all of *you* people - sick, old, non-productive people - jumping off the cliff... go ahead, i'll stay here and watch."

[fakepeeps7]

You think having non-productive people around is efficient and good for the whole of the species? I don't think anybody's talking about getting rid of their vibrant and social granny, just because she's over the age of 65. Nobody's talking about getting rid of people like Stephen Hawking just because he can't walk. The issue is with people taking up resources when they will never be able to give anything back to society. Elderly people with severe dementia who don't even know where they are and children who are so brain-damaged they will be in a PVS for the rest of their lives are a couple of examples.

Overpopulation is the thing nobody wants to talk about, because everybody seems to think it's their right to have as many babies as they like. We are on a finite planet, you know. It doesn't magically grow and form more resources just because some people want to breed their brains out and have more children than anyone could possibly need.

Hey... there's my answer. Want to improve the world? Have fewer babies. Not zero babies. Just fewer babies. Nobody needs 19 kids.

[kiwi_tea]

Of course I don't think that making prisons more unwelcoming will make huge and immediate differences but I believe it would help.

You don't rehabilitate a group of largely povery-stricken, largely un-educated people by crushing them under your heel. Imprisonment is a big deal, and hardly any prisons are nice places to live. The idea that prisons are nice middle-class hotels is patently ridiculous. If you want to make the world a better place housing prisons in healthy, intellectually stimulating conditions and pouring a LOT more money into good rehabilitative programmes would be a pretty decent start. Even though it's still an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

First you need to remove the outrageous conditions that cause the vast majority of criminal behaviour, and again, that means overcoming the stunting effects of capitalism. Many people might "choose" to become criminals, but they tend to choose it more often when they're living in intolerable conditions under which it's not very nice to be a worker either.

[Mia138]

I don't accept that the vast majority of criminals are that way because they live in intolerable conditions. Whilst I'm certain that some of them have difficult living conditions even so that hardly excuses them turning to a life of crime. Believe me, as a single mother for ten years I know what its like to have virtually no money and live in a run down area surrounded by drug users and prostitutes but I didnt turn to crime to feed my kids. I worked damn hard and made sure I taught my kids that what was going on around them didnt have to be the way THEIR lives went.
I feel compassion for the very small minority of criminals who end up inside because they felt they had no other choice other than to steal and of course, those who are genuinely mentally ill need help but for your rapists, murderers, child molesters, violent robbers etc who commit their crimes out of choice/sadistic pleasure I dont think they should be rewarded by having 'intellectually stimulating conditions and pouring in a LOT of money'.Better that money be spent helping their victims rebuild their lives.

[Oaktree]

Nice in theory, but the fastest road to a plutocracy as well. Not to mention tyranny of the business class and total atrophy of the middle class.

Define "hurt"?

- Is having a factory of workers on the minimum wage while living cost skyrocket "hurt", or does one use a euphemism like "creating opportunities"?

- Where does the funding come from for adequate public education/healthcare under this scheme? Are the vast hoards that inevitably go without "hurt"?

- How does democracy thrive when this system necessarily leads to a tiny minority of people owning all the world's wealth and well-being? Are those that give up and stop even voting "hurt", given they only have options who will represent business interests, not workers' interests?

- Is the pretense that wealth trickles down sufficiently to make life comfortable for all workers "hurtful"?

I would rather not restart that massive political debate. Suffice it to say, a free market system isn't as imbalanced as you think it is.

I think we need to move beyond our current restrictions of nationalism. It's just not healthy and it really doesn't even reflect the way the world works any longer. Remove borders, increase the rate of transport of ideas and allow immigration and ideas to happen naturally. We need to learn to work together as one world, not as nations. So much of the hardship on the planet happens because we only treat the symptoms of those closest and similar to ourselves. We need to find ways to treat all of the world's problems regardless of where they happen, not because of the advantage it gives us over here, but because it's the responsible thing to do as citizens of the planet. We need to begin on a world culture, and then export it to other worlds.

I considered writing something to this end in my response, but I don't think that people should be forced into giving up whatever political organization they prefer. I think that a united world is ideal, but I have no right to force that on those who would prefer to have a separate government. Now, if that political organization is actively trying to conquer or destroy other groups of people, the victims have every right to stop the victimization, but so long as that organization is peaceful, it can't ethically be forced to participate in another government.

[Nekowolf]

@Oaktree - "Suffice it to say, a free market system isn't as imbalanced as you think it is."

1. That's dangerously close to turning this into another massive political debate. 2. Opinion, not fact.

That's all I wanted to say /end.

[ElementMK]

I think the world would be a better place if I had total, absolute control over every human on Earth.

Oh, people have already tried that? Carry on, commoners.

[RoseCity]

I don't think more education would necessarily solve anything. And I'm not saying people shouldn't be educated. The greedy capitalist, out for himself, is often highly educated and at the same time committing crimes. But he/she can pay to change laws or buy their way out of trouble, so they seldom end up in jail. You go through 16 years of school and when you graduate, the only job available to you is at Walmart?
Maybe people can just absent themselves from the world economy as defined by Goldman Sachs et al and make their own local economies. Because right now we're just sheep that they shear.

[el_flel]

I don't accept that the vast majority of criminals are that way because they live in intolerable conditions. Whilst I'm certain that some of them have difficult living conditions even so that hardly excuses them turning to a life of crime. <snip> I dont think they should be rewarded by having 'intellectually stimulating conditions and pouring in a LOT of money'.Better that money be spent helping their victims rebuild their lives.The environment that people live in has a massive amount of influence on their criminal behaviour. This is why you get crime hotspots. Crime rates are much higher in poorer areas of a country, for example. It's not an excuse for that behaviour, but it is a reason.

Rehabilitation helps everyone, not just the criminal. And providing decent funding for decent rehabilitation programs isn't 'rewarding' a criminal at all. They don't see that money, it's used trying to figure out how to stop people committing further crimes - how can that possibly be a bad thing?

[Undercovers_Agent]

Have fewer babies. Not zero babies. Just fewer babies. Nobody needs 19 kids.

But everone needs the feeling of making 19 babies. Catch my drift? It's like drugs, people don't want the drug but they want to get high.

[Mistermook]

I considered writing something to this end in my response, but I don't think that people should be forced into giving up whatever political organization they prefer. I think that a united world is ideal, but I have no right to force that on those who would prefer to have a separate government. Now, if that political organization is actively trying to conquer or destroy other groups of people, the victims have every right to stop the victimization, but so long as that organization is peaceful, it can't ethically be forced to participate in another government.
Whoa, I thought we were engaging in a sort of "blue sky" process here. I didn't mention anything on how the existing structures of power and economy break down because as far as the "would the world be better" reasoning it really didn't matter. Just as I'm fairly comfortable not holding the "the world needs less people" crowd beholden to some "you bastard, you're talking about genocide!" message unless they've explicitly expressed it.

Any change is hard, and any change that changes the world is either a gradual process that sneaks up on people so slowly it's hard to identify it at all, or else is a horrific trauma. I know you've told me that you disagree with me on the inherent irrationality of Man and all that, but here you're taking a statement I've made disregarding my own opinions of the plausible and attaching the gritty analysis I'd normally make.

I mean, I really don't think the world will ever get better. Not really. People are fucked up, and that's all there is to that. Maybe we'll get lucky and technology will save us once again, over and over again in the future, but on some level I have to wonder if that's simply the wishful thinking of naive optimism. People fight until they're made not to fight, they eat until they starve, and the build until there's no room to grow - and then they fight over each other's land regardless of who is out there trying to stop them. We're animals.

BUT I think if we were somehow to stand a chance against that cycle of barbarism, we need to work together as an entire people, not clusters of people, and take the problems of individuals as problems of the whole race. It probably doesn't stand a chance of happening, and even if it happened it wouldn't last... but it would nice if it happened, even for a little while. Eliminate poverty and reduce income inequality. Educate everyone. Distribute natural resources rationally and equitably. Remove the artificial barriers to progress. Work together.

It's a pipe dream, but that's what we're doing here: Imagining a perfect world. Perfection never happens.

[Purity4]

The only way this world will get better is if it becomes less self-obsessed and more tolerant.
:luff: And I agree with everything Mistermook wrote in the previous post.

[whiterider]

But everone needs the feeling of making 19 babies. Catch my drift? It's like drugs, people don't want the drug but they want to get high.I only feel a need for the part of that process which ends in latex. :heyhey: But this could turn into the babby/adoption debate again, which isn't really relevant... although more adoptions as opposed to babies would help with overcrowding. Maybe this means we need more married gay couples.

[Mistermook]

I wonder how many women out there actually have these large families compared to the overall population anyways? In most Western industrialized nations we're having less babies, not more. That kind of suggests there's a coincidence with raising people about of poverty and slowing population growth - even though our vastly slower population growth is naturally upset by our vastly larger use of resources. I kind of wonder about people in the US with more than four kids or so... do they not have cable? How much free time do these people have to spend in the first place, that they're not nipping this kid thing in the bud before it gets on top of them? I'm from the US Southeast so I can hear about great-great-grandparents that had seven siblings and all that, but they lost four more along the way. These days if you have a kid in North America you've got a high probability of being stuck with them. You can't even send them off to pay for themselves when they're ten shoveling coal and cleaning chimneys. It's not worth it unless you want the company.

;)

[Purity4]

I only feel a need for the part of that process which ends in latex. :heyhey: But this could turn into the babby/adoption debate again, which isn't really relevant... although more adoptions as opposed to babies would help with overcrowding. Maybe this means we need more married gay couples.

So off topic, but I think the world in general, and the US in particular, are overall reproducing less. Instead, people are living much longer.

[Oaktree]

Nekowolf: Well, politics were brought up, and while I have a less popular opinion, it doesn't automatically invalidate my opinion. I was trying to avoid a massive debate, though I could just as easily have called into question the opinion that kiwi_tea expressed.

Mistermook: Eh, I suppose the thread is more about ideals than practicality. In that case, I would agree that we should be united because it takes away some of the "justifications" for conflict and it allows for a better exchange of ideas. It also takes the focus off of the military. In a truly perfect world, there wouldn't need to be a military once the world became united, though I imagine that more realistically there would be the need for a token military to prevent would-be conquerors. With a lesser focus on military, though, there would be more funding for scientific research and improving the quality of life.

[Mistermook]

Most places don't have the focus on the military that the US does already. OTOH, I think that a military force wouldn't have to be much larger than the USA's is currently to provide just about all the shootin' and packing sandbags that most people could ever need in a nationless world. That's still a net savings in resources I guess.

I'm more concerned with removing the excuses for treating people differently though. I don't want anyone talking about Iran's problems or the USA's problems, or black people's problems or gypsy problems - I want everyone talking about our problems, and how do we fix them. Not to get too New Age or anything, but the world is too small these days, and getting smaller, to treat the issues our neighbors suffer through as their problem alone. We need to be responsible for each other.

[Undercovers_Agent]

The only issue with that is that even though the US is super military, we're only equiped to at best fight one war.

[Vanito]

Fun fact, I am one of those ill kids. And I never understood why I have the right to live while in other parts of the world kids die of far lesser diseases. I also got a gran that is 92 years old and doesn't know where her head starts and her ass ends anymore. In the clear moments she has she asks us if she may please, please die because she doesn't feel like herself anymore, but the body is still strong, so no can do.

You might think it is selfish, it is far from. It's stonecold realism.
You are ill, and can decide about your own life. Your illness does not make it more or less valid to decide about ending other ill peoples lifes. Thats crappy logic.

I agree people who wish to die should be able to euthanise, but your reasoning of "rights" to live in a materialistic world like this does not
make sense. Let ill people die here because they die in other countries? That is a very crappy solution.

Would we wish to help people in poor countries, instead of killing ourself we could also decide not to buy a new car, not consider that expensive new home because we want a lawn, and quit spending money on nonsense luxury goods like TVs, dishwashers, stereo towers, eating lots of meat etc - then send the money to poor people. Now that would help.

Overdramatic cruel statements don't add much to helping this planet. If you want a better place, negativity won't fix it.

[Oaktree]

Most places don't have the focus on the military that the US does already. OTOH, I think that a military force wouldn't have to be much larger than the USA's is currently to provide just about all the shootin' and packing sandbags that most people could ever need in a nationless world. That's still a net savings in resources I guess.

I'm more concerned with removing the excuses for treating people differently though. I don't want anyone talking about Iran's problems or the USA's problems, or black people's problems or gypsy problems - I want everyone talking about our problems, and how do we fix them. Not to get too New Age or anything, but the world is too small these days, and getting smaller, to treat the issues our neighbors suffer through as their problem alone. We need to be responsible for each other.

I'm with you to a point here. I agree that the military force wouldn't have to be much larger than that of the US, and I agree that we need to stop treating people differently, but I don't agree with the idea of being responsible for each other. I think that it is part of one's responsibility to not treat others badly, but I don't think that that entails picking up the burden of others. I think that people need to be responsible for themselves in order to truly be moral people, so a society with a diffuse concept of responsibility might lead to one in which people do what they want without a care for others. Even in an ideal world, we must account for human nature. People can be and often are motivated by reward and punishment. In order to properly reward/punish, responsibility must remain a personal matter.

[paksetti]

^ Trust me, it's not like that everywhere. I've lived here ten years and neighbors treat each other like insane criminals-- "HOLY SHIT stranger! Run inside to the panic room, children, they want FLOUR!" Seriously, try to strike up a conversation with these people, they're afraid of their neighbors.

To be fair, I did know one neighbor, he was a really nice old man, but he died, so now I know no one. (say that three times fast.)

[Mortimer 2]

Uniting the world seems to be a somewhat good idea but rather idealistic and impossible. You are not allowed to unite people by force. There are a lot of countries in the world that have a totally different culture and do not want to change it. As long as people have different stands ,it will be hard to have a good world,ever you hear about Gallic Wars etc?
the point is not about war/force people to united,they just afraid to move forward,the culture not make the world split,but make the world rich,that is not a good reason. :call:
Imagine someone saying: "I want to unite the world so that everyone would be Muslim" Get rid of ---- like that,The world will be a better place,since we know about freedom for choose the religion. :rolleyes:

argg,my bad. :faceslap:

[Purity4]

^ Trust me, it's not like that everywhere. I've lived here ten years and neighbors treat each other like insane criminals-- "HOLY SHIT stranger! Run inside to the panic room, children, they want FLOUR!" Seriously, try to strike up a conversation with these people, they're afraid of their neighbors.

To be fair, I did know one neighbor, he was a really nice old man, but he died, so now I know no one. (say that three times fast.)

People are varied. There are regional variations, but even within these norms, there are individuals that break the rule. I've lived in a lot of places in the 36 years I've been here, and each place has a certain accepted range of social interactions. Yet there is always going to be one, or ten, or 100 people who do not follow the accepted norms and will behave socially in the way they think is best. There will be those over-cautious, those totally open and free, and some in the middle. There will be some who are suspicious of neighbors and a neighbor who always warmly greets you or invites you over for tea and a chat (or coffee).

*I was looking for a rainbow smiley and was surprised there isn't one*

[iCad]

Well, I'm finally done with the busy time in my "work" schedule, so I have some time to do some poking around here. So, my $.02 on this subject:

I really have no grand plan to "improve the world." Mostly because I'm not enough of an idealist, I suppose; the cynic in me says that the best I can hope for is for small communities to improve. But then, if enough small communities come together and improve themselves, then maybe eventually the whole world, or at least patches of it, will improve, too. And the key to improvement, I think, is indeed community. To that end, I personally advocate a return to simpler living. I don't advocate returning to the laws and morals and such of bygone years, nor do I advocate abandoning technology or things like modern medicine. I merely advocate returning as best as one can to the kind of simpler, slower lives that people led 200 years ago or so. When families were closely-knit and communities were tightly-woven, their residents interdependent on one another. When "big business" didn't exist. When people lived "closer to the Earth," as the saying goes. When people didn't have useless "things" and most everything that one owned had a practical purpose.

I'm very biased, of course. I lived much of my adult life in the suffocating deathgrip of Standard Upper-Class American Materialism. But then I got divorced, and along with the husband I also chucked my entire lifestyle, gave away or sold most of my "things"...and moved to paradise. It's a tiny town in very rural Colorado. Ranches, mostly. Ours is one of the smallest, at 36 acres. Everyone knows everyone else here and, more importantly, everyone has a role to play in the community. Basically, there's a person or family to do or supply much of the goods and services that the community needs without many standard "stores." We don't have a Wal-Mart or even a supermarket...but we don't need them. So because of this, we have a real sense of interdependent community here, and when there's a sense of community IMO everything improves. There is no temptation to harm a neighbor in any way, for instance, because 1) You know them well and 2) You likely depend on them, directly or indirectly, for something, just as they likely depend on you.

In short, good community tends to bring out the best in people, IMO, and when people are motivated and at their best, that's when positive change happens. We are social animals, but I think we've gotten too far away from that. Oh sure, we pack ourselves into huge cities where millions of people live all crammed together...but we often don't even know all the people who live on the same floor of the apartment building that we live on, much less all of the people in the entire building, much less any of the people in the building across the street. We spend hours on the Internet "talking" to faceless people, but we don't know the person who lives next door to us. To me, it's quite tragic, and the disconnection only seems to be getting worse.

And when you don't know people, you tend not to care about people. You only care about yourself. And when that selfish not-caring goes on long enough and you hear often enough about how horrible and destructive humanity is, then you start to get attitudes like society not "needing" certain people, so it becomes "OK" to recommend getting rid of them. But really, who is anyone to judge whether or not someone else is "needed?" That attitude scares me. Maybe it's because I'm steadily creeping toward the age when the younger generation will tend to deem me "not needed" anymore, but really I think it's more because I have experienced real community, one that cares about its own, no matter their age or their health status and, by extension, one that cares about its neighboring communities, too. But I'll stop, lest I rant.. ;)

So anyway, that's my suggestion for a "better world." Create interdependent small communities of people who know and care about each other and, in the best of cases, depend on one another to at least some degree. Even if the "community" is only that of the people living on one's street. IMO, people are becoming disconnected, and a society of people wholly disconnected from each other really can't improve because no one will care enough about any other person to do the work that is always required to improve. It amazes me how many people in one breath will talk about grand plans to make the world better and then in the next breath will talk about how much they hate humanity. They don't seem to realize that if enough people have that hateful attitude -- and a lot of people do, especially, in my experience, younger people -- then making the world better will never happen.

[Mistermook]

It amazes me how many people in one breath will talk about grand plans to make the world better and then in the next breath will talk about how much they hate humanity.
I want to dislike humanity less. I like the idea of humanity, just not the execution.

:D

[Tempscire]

I merely advocate returning as best as one can to the kind of simpler, slower lives that people led 200 years ago or so. When families were closely-knit and communities were tightly-woven, their residents interdependent on one another. When "big business" didn't exist. When people lived "closer to the Earth," as the saying goes. When people didn't have useless "things" and most everything that one owned had a practical purpose.

When people couldn't bat an eyelid without 20 of their neighbors noticing and informing the rest of the town within a day. When people who wanted to really do something with their lives couldn't wait to escape to a big city. When people would warily shun newcomers who were not yet part of their little tightly knit community. When you didn't have any price options for shopping, and you had to wait 2 weeks for something to be ordered that the ol' general store didn't have in stock. When people weren't as worldly and familiar with strange cultures not their own. When people absolutely did own own "unnecessary" things, and those that couldn't afford them desperately would have loved to have the ability. When feelings of insularity and distrust of outsiders and prejudice could easily fester.

Sorry, but I very much distrust when people start holding up the past as a better way of living. It was the days of everyone living in little close-knit villages that prejudice had the firmest hold.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

more moderation...more modesty.... less frantic pursuit of happiness...
more food for some, less for others...
respect for nature and its many forms ( the general things like plants, animals, weather etc ).

lets try to stop making up reasons NOT to do things...NOT to like people...
( clarification: its perfectly fine to dislike a person you know to go against specific reasoning, but ive noticed a lot of people avoid even getting to know someone or taking that first step and saying hi based off of made-up reasons to dislike them. )


just general ideas, im not sure i have anything specific to really get at.

Mistermook already said anything else i could think of on the matter.

[Black_Barook!]

1. Slow the pace of life.

People need to be educated in the ways of leisure. (I should know I’m Kuwaiti) People need to stop and smell the roses. No really. They need to stroll onto Cafe Blanc order some coffee, Turkish or French either way, and take a full ten to fifteen minutes sipping the coffee. Sipping, not slurping or drinking, or rushing to your car forgetting the mug on top and then driving off to work only to remember the coffee on top of the car, oh too late the mug crashed on the asphalt. Pity it was a birthday gift with the words “I can’t believe I’m thirty!” printed on one side. It was your own damn fault anyway.

This rule needs to apply to every aspect of our lives. EVERY. ASPECT. OF. OUR. LIVES. Sure you’re going to be late for class, but when your anus needs to talk with the toilet, be considerate and give the two enough time to catch up. While on the subject, douches should be mandatory. Believe me, your loved one will thank you for it. Unless you’re not into that in which case think of how pimple free your ass-checks would be!

Speaking of sex. No one likes a “Wham, Bam, Thank You Mama!” approach to love-making. Or love in general. Take time to love one another and savor the moment you have with your significant other. Unless you’re Muslim or Mormon, in which case and an s to the second to last word. Unless you’re the female in which case you aren’t getting any action unless he loves you or your young and good-looking. Catholics can ignore this rule since they aren’t allowed to have sex. Same with Homosexuals, we’ll give you another hundred years of wild meaningless sex due to the hundred years of sexual oppression. Unless you’re a woman in which case I’ll shut up now.

2. Reevaluate the modern economic system.

First of all I’d like to say that I’m not an economist, nor am I a student of economics. In fact I’m an English major so feel free to ignore everything I said, saying and will say below. All I can say is that our economic system is flawed. It’s not an inherent flaw, meaning that the core of our economic system “The free trade of products and ideas” is solid to the core. The problem is our implementation of that core idea. Adam Smith was a fantastic economic thinker, but he was unbelievably optimistic and ideal. I’m pretty sure that if he was alive today he’d change his mind; but the poor bastard is rolling in his grave suffering untold agony. But enough about his clearly mistaken choice in religion. Speaking of a poor bastard rolling in the dirt, Karl Marx wasn’t all that different from Adam Smith. He also shared an unrealistic view of the world, a view that placed the working class as forever the victims and the middle and upper classes as the oppressors. If he was alive today he’d...well he’d still think the same way since our economic system is run by assholes. Well maybe that’s not fair. Maybe they just have a hole where their brain used to be and are surrounded by asses. The solution usually lies somewhere in the middle. Unless you’re running the system in which case you lacked out, what with the no brain part. At least that zombies won’t go after you.

3. Upgrade the education system.

The problem with our education system is that it doesn’t seem to take into account the needs of the modern world. I mean over two hundred years ago the system would have been perfect. However we are in need of something much more. I honestly don’t know where to being. There should be an increases of learning from the early ages. Not random ABC’s I23’s and then nap time, actually learning that pushes our young students to learn more and want to learn more. More languages should be provided at an earlier age. The artistic, physical, and digital educations shouldn’t be seen as extra anything but as a core to the students development. Oh and don’t bullshit students with painting, drama, Microsoft Office or whatever it is offered for physical education in your area. Give them the choice between using the brush, pencil, chisel, digital pen, camera, or the body for artistic expression. Let them decided if they want to be take programming, electronic construction, robotics for their nerdly arts. Provide the more physically inclined students to have choice between cardiovascular, yoga, fencing, martial arts, weight-training. And for God’s sake it’s football not soccer! The shit you play is you can call soccer!

Also extend the education system. After their final year in high-school don’t have them going off to college. Give them a few years where they can work with the Army, Hospitals, Education System, Government whatever that might help build character or experience and solve a few vacancies. Tweak the system that if students do take the time to experience all of this then when starting college some of their early requirements are fulfilled.

Lastly. We need more vocational schools! Some people don’t want to waste time on theory and would rather get their hands dirty, jumping head first. Give them the ability to do so!

4. Place a high standard for medicine

Any medicine that is required to live a happy, healthy life, should be either ridicules cheap or free. How are the pharmaceutical companies going to make money you ask? They don’t. They shouldn’t even be making money in the first place. Shut your face. I said shut it! You’re ugly anyway. Here’s a paper bag, that should solve world peace.

Why is it that people are selling pill, tablets or God knows what else that claim to cure this or that or help you lose all your weight while sitting on the couch feasting on donuts while watching the Simpsons? Why is there a stamp by the FDA saying that this product might not actually work? Isn’t part of the Food & Drug Administration’s job to make sure scammers don’t screw people over? “But wait!” I hear you cry. “It was an agreeme...blah blah blah.” If it doesn’t work and is a lie, scam, or bullshit then it should be banned. Now shut your face and put on the paper bag.

Random Thoughts:

Advertising today is so annoyingly disgusting. How can one lead a better life when one is bombard with images, sound and messages that proclaim all that one needs to led a happy life is to buy so-and-so. I would be nice to follow in the foot-steps of certain cities that are banning advertising. You think it’s anti-capitalist? Read point 2 and then shut your face and paper bag it.

I hate patents. Especially when it’s used by big corporations. I say give everyone the right to use what ever they want or at least make the only system used is the Creative Commons one. Works well for the fashion industry.

[iCad]

Sorry, but I very much distrust when people start holding up the past as a better way of living. It was the days of everyone living in little close-knit villages that prejudice had the firmest hold.

Well, like I said, I'm very biased. :) What I have experienced works for me and for my neighbors. To address some of the things you said Prices are good here; in fact, we often barter and no money changes hands at all. What we can't provide for ourselves can be ordered on the Internet, which we obviously have, so there's little danger of price gouging and having no shopping options. I'm not advocating isolationism like, say, the Amish but, really, a readjusting of priorities, a lessening in the worshipping and pursuit of the dollar. And I'm living proof that outsiders aren't always shunned in a tightly-knit community. I was about as "outside" as you could get when I came here, but I was open-minded and willing to contribute, and that was all that was necessary to "fit in." Why? Because my neighbors are generally open-minded people, too. We may live a slower life here, but we're not backward and certainly not afraid of things that are different. It's what's made us a culturally and ethnically diverse community with little strife.

So like I said, I'm not advocating returning to bygone times, per se, but merely embracing some of the attitudes that people had back then. In some ways, the past WAS better. In some ways, of course, it was worse. But what's wrong with picking out what did work in the past, learning from mistakes made then, and combining all of that with any and all wisdom that we've acquired since those times in order to create positive change for the future?

[Black_Barook!]

Sorry, but I very much distrust when people start holding up the past as a better way of living.

For some the past held a better way of living. In the past there was a Palestine. In the past Kuwait and Iraq were good friends. In the past Iran was a democracy. In the past there was stability in the Middle East. In the past one could move freely and not worry about being shot at or held for days on end due to stupid red tape.

It was the days of everyone living in little close-knit villages that prejudice had the firmest hold.

Er. No. Peopler are less trusting, but that's normal for all human interactions. The more you know someone the more you trust them. Doesn't matter if it was in a village of a few hovels, or a village of a million towers.

[Mistermook]

For some the past held a better way of living. In the past there was a Palestine. In the past Kuwait and Iraq were good friends. In the past Iran was a democracy. In the past there was stability in the Middle East. In the past one could move freely and not worry about being shot at or held for days on end due to stupid red tape.
But that's still romanticized oversimplification - in the the past there were Greeks running through the Middle East terrorizing everyone in the name of one man's ego, Mongols putting entire cities to death, no flush toilets, horrifying infant mortality rates, oppressive regimes and puppet dictatorships...

I'm not saying it's impossible to pick what you want the world to be like and plan accordingly using history's lessons as a basis, but really I think that when you start waving the past around as some flag as to as how the world should be it's usually better to just figure out what you liked about the past and try to figure out how to make those happen in the real world. Without a time machine or turning back the clock, which is usually not what you're looking for anyways.

[Tempscire]

Well, like I said, I'm very biased. :) What I have experienced works for me and for my neighbors. To address some of the things you said Prices are good here; in fact, we often barter and no money changes hands at all.

In some ways, of course, it was worse. But what's wrong with picking out what did work in the past, learning from mistakes made then, and combining all of that with any and all wisdom that we've acquired since those times in order to create positive change for the future?

As am I. :) Very interesting that your community barters. I don't know how much it's possible to cherry-pick from the past, though. Nothing exists independently of everything else: people lived in small towns for a reason, and they had their particular small-town culture as a result, and other things happened because of that culture. Living in big cities, so far as I can tell, has a very good effect on people's tolerances of others, if only because they're too apathetic to care their neighbor is a cross-dressing polka player. Maybe re-invented small towns would have the ethnic diversity their predecessors lacked, but there would still be other issues.

Er. No. Peopler are less trusting, but that's normal for all human interactions. The more you know someone the more you trust them. Doesn't matter if it was in a village of a few hovels, or a village of a million towers.

Not my point. People trusted their neighbors, of course-- it's the people from other towns (or states or countries or racial groups) who came passing through who had the problems. People trust their group, whether in a village of "hovels or towers," and they don't trust people on the outside of that group.

I don't buy the argument that people could break down into small town living again while retaining modern attitudes, though. For one, there's always ways we can keep striving for equality for various groups, and the most acceptance and the biggest pushes for that do not come out of the small towns. Even in today's much more enlightened era, you try moving to a little village and there's a good chance you'll be excluded somehow, just because your family hasn't been living and dying in that town for the last 200 years. God help you if you have a hobby outside the norm or don't attend church (or whatever other main community-social event all the townfolk participate in).

[Mistermook]

Barter's actually pretty complicated under the US UCC. Even though no money is exchanged, everything has to be assigned a value, there's a designated buyer and seller, etc. Even though no money is exchanged, someone owes money to the state for the sales tax, and I've got absolutely no clue what that sort of transaction would look like on a properly written account.

That's not an insurmountable burden - laws can be changed, after all. If we went to a barter economy as is though, I think we'd find a lot of governmental services being left unfunded because we'd essentially end up with a lot of tax fraud because of people's (probable) reluctance to go through the hoops necessary to make barter work legally in the US.

[iCad]

Very interesting that your community barters.

It's an effect, I think, of being a collection of rural ranches, each tending to specialize in something. One generally has a surplus of that one thing and a lack of other things of which your neighbors often have a surplus. For instance, we breed and raise llamas and alpacas to sell as pets/pack animals as well as for their hair, which we shear and sell/barter cleaned but otherwise raw. We sell the hair all over the region, but every year, especially as our herd grows, we have more than we can sell and/or use. So, rather than dealing with money or trucking the hour to the closest "real" town to go to a grocery store, it's easier for me to skip across the road to the self-sufficient homesteading family who runs a 1000-acre cattle/pig ranch and whose matriarch spins her own yarn and weaves her own cloth to make her family's clothing and say, "Yo! I've got X pounds of nice white alpaca fleece I don't need. Got any extra ground beef and pork chops you don't need?" From there it's just a matter of determining what's fair, trade-wise, and that's not that hard.

I realize, of course, that this probably isn't likely to happen anywhere that isn't rural/agrarian and/or where people don't value self-sufficiency and living "off the grid" and supporting each other, as we do here. But it works for us...although money often changes hands, too. But because we go to our neighbors first, at least the money mostly stays in our own community, with the exception of purchases of goods and services that our community doesn't (yet?) provide.

I don't know how much it's possible to cherry-pick from the past, though. Nothing exists independently of everything else: people lived in small towns for a reason, and they had their particular small-town culture as a result, and other things happened because of that culture.

That may or may not be true, depending on the situation, I think. Where I live, we're "backward-looking" on some things (i.e., homesteading and living "off-the-grid") and "forward-facing" on others (i.e., embracing cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity). Because, I think, that cherry-picking has happened to some extent. Now, whether or not such a thing is possible universally or even just on a larger scale...I don't know. The cynic in me says no. The optimist in me says yes.

Living in big cities, so far as I can tell, has a very good effect on people's tolerances of others, if only because they're too apathetic to care their neighbor is a cross-dressing polka player.

I suppose it might...but that certainly wasn't always my experience when I lived in New York City and then Los Angeles. People could be QUITE intolerant in both of those places. In NYC when I was there, there was MUCH conflict between black people and Puerto Ricans. In LA, it was pretty much everyone vs. the Mexicans. People were VERY insular and distrustful, pretty much all based on ethnicity. From what I read, that sort of thing hasn't seemed to have gotten much better and perhaps has gotten worse since I abandoned city living...Hmm, 12 years ago now.

Where I live now...Well, that cattle-ranching family is hard-core home-church Christian. I and my housemate are...wacky Christians. Our next door neighbor is an old Navajo woman who embraces the ancient traditions of her culture and who is our community's herbalist. Our next door neighbor on the other side is a Mexican family who farms sheep and who when they arrived five years ago spoke very little English but who learned quickly. On some Saturday afternoons when we're all free, the matriarch of the cattle-ranch family, the Navajo woman, the Mexican farmer's wife, me, and my housemate will gather at the cattle-ranchers' house to help the mom and her older daughters with the spinning and weaving, which she taught us all how to do. While we do that, we all talk and laugh and gossip. And eat, pot-luck style. And sometimes we argue, gently, because we have, obviously, very different religious and cultural beliefs which conflict but which we're not afraid to discuss, in the spirit of understanding each other better. And we all love and respect one another very much like sisters, despite our differences. Intolerant, we are not.

I know, of course, that some small communities are very closed and insular and prejudiced/racist/religionist and all those bad things you pointed out. But that doesn't mean that all small communities are that way or that they will all inevitably become that way while large communities are somehow immune. Really, that sort of thing will happen whenever people don't care about other people, and that can happen in a place as big as NYC as easily as it can happen in my "town" of 850ish people.

Maybe re-invented small towns would have the ethnic diversity their predecessors lacked, but there would still be other issues.

Of course. Because we're human beings and that's how human beings are. My argument, though, is that small communities where people know and talk to each other and that are open-minded rather than insular are likely to get over those issues more easily than communities, large or small, where people are disconnected from each other. In my experience, such a disconnect is more liable to happen in a large city, not a smaller community, simply because of logistics, although some individual neighborhoods in large cities ARE very closely-knit. Such neighborhoods are really much like a small town, a town-within-a-city. So, I guess I recommend people working to make a large city as a whole more socially like a small town. That might well be completely impossible, but we ARE being somewhat idealistic in this thread, I think. :)

[SuicidiaParasidia]

It reminds of of religiously devoted old people in Poland who go to church regularly, confess and pray but when they go home they wish their neighbor's all the worst only to please themselves. As long as people are two-faced and dishonest there will never be a perfect world.

or maybe itd be less of a secret if people just accepted that as humans we are multi-dimensional creatures whom posses ALL of these emotions and facets, desirable and otherwise.

[Black_Barook!]

But that's still romanticized oversimplification - in the the past there were Greeks running through the Middle East terrorizing everyone in the name of one man's ego, Mongols putting entire cities to death, no flush toilets, horrifying infant mortality rates, oppressive regimes and puppet dictatorships...

When you sat Greeks running through the Middle East; do you mean the Byzantine or the Franks (Arab term for the Europeans)? Either way they weren’t that big of a threat. A nuisance, yes but I wouldn’t say that they were terrorizing everyone. The Crusades are overblown by Europeans (Ego-stroking) and certain religious figures (To fan the flames of hatred). But both were easily routed out of the region, sure the Crusaders held some land, but only because there was no strong central power.

The Mongols on the other hand were a huge threat, but they’re Mongols. What do you expect? They were the bane of most civilizations, and when they were converted they were turned into a force for good; opening up more land and trade routes in the east to China.

I’ll give you the flush toilets. Not because they didn’t flush, since I’m not sure if that technology was applied in parts of the Middle East, but because they had the squat toilets. God I hate those...

Arabic medicine was more advanced then much of the world at that time. And we still have oppressive regimes and puppet dictatorships, at least back then their power didn’t extend all over the place.

I'm not saying it's impossible to pick what you want the world to be like and plan accordingly using history's lessons as a basis, but really I think that when you start waving the past around as some flag as to as how the world should be it's usually better to just figure out what you liked about the past and try to figure out how to make those happen in the real world. Without a time machine or turning back the clock, which is usually not what you're looking for anyways.

I agree! 8D Now love me! 8’3

Not my point. People trusted their neighbors, of course-- it's the people from other towns (or states or countries or racial groups) who came passing through who had the problems. People trust their group, whether in a village of "hovels or towers," and they don't trust people on the outside of that group.

True to an extent. In certain cultures those villagers of hovels or towers are expected by social and religious norms to be welcoming and kind. In Greek, Turkish and Arabian culture it would be an offense to let a guest live in a hotel instead of sharing their own home. One cup of tea, you are a guest. Two cups of tea, you are a friend. Three cups of tea and you are family. In certain cultures and religions (Arabic, Islam) if a baby suckles from another woman then he becomes like her own flesh and blood. People are taught to visit and help up to their seventh neighbor on each side. We are talking about cultures were tribes bankrupted themselves building taverns, inns and tent camps for traveling folk.

I’m not trying to say that you’re wrong, just that it differs from culture to culture.

[Mistermook]

When you sat Greeks running through the Middle East; do you mean the Byzantine or the Franks (Arab term for the Europeans)?
I meant the Greeks. THE Greek. Alexander. It was a temporary hassle, for sure, but on the other hand it made a big dent in history somehow anyways.

[Black_Barook!]

I meant the Greeks. THE Greek. Alexander. It was a temporary hassle, for sure, but on the other hand it made a big dent in history somehow anyways.

Yeah...about that. I kinda had a tighter time period than that. Before the Crusades, Fall of Moorish Spain and the Mongols and after end of the Righteous Caliphates.

[Mistermook]

That's still cherry-picking from history. If you're romanticizing, who's to say it didn't all go wrong with Alexander? Maybe he's the original jerk that screwed it all up?


All I'm really saying is that I always find it terribly amusing when people start talking about turning back the clock on history. I know everyone legitimately bitches about how terrible the present is, but at any given point in time the world was full of people bitching about their present - and they were right too.

[Tempscire]

All I'm really saying is that I always find it terribly amusing when people start talking about turning back the clock on history. I know everyone legitimately bitches about how terrible the present is, but at any given point in time the world was full of people bitching about their present - and they were right too.

Even more than people ragging on their "present," there's also the seemingly ingrained tendency to idealize the past...which people have been doing since, literally, forever ago.

Of course, this just sort of feeds my own take on how to improve the world: just let history take its course. The world we live in today is, overall, better than anything that (we know) has come before. There's more opportunity, there's longer lifespans and healthier people, more and better food, leisure time, more equality, where there's bigotry there's often at least hate crime/discrimination laws to minimize how it gets expressed, there's easily facilitated travel, there's widespread literacy and education and more information is readily available to any given person than has ever been in the entire span of human history.

There's war, but there's always been war, and good things even can come out of that suffering. There's crime, but there's also a much more fair legal system than has been employed for much of history, backed up with technology to make convictions more certain. There's rape and molestation and pedophiles and serial killers... but at least these days we know it happens instead of stigmatizing it, pretending it never happens, and no one ever finding out ("...and knowing is half the battle." ;)). There's deep poverty, but more phenomenal wealth, and more people have more of the assets once reserved only for the upper-class. As more of the world becomes industrialized, the "middle class" phenomenon spreads, and quality of life increases for more people. The U.S. doesn't have the most all-encompassing social programs, but even the lowest can find at least some minimum of aid somewhere if they choose to accept it (as opposed to being sent to work houses or left to starve in the streets or a debtor's prison of old).

It may be slow and clumsy and awkward but progress does happen, and while it may be cold to minimize the misfortunes of a group of people, in the larger span of history, even tragedy can eventually lead to something good. Beyond just keeping up with the ongoing progressive trends, I don't know if I really believe more can be done without forcefully subverting fundamental human nature.

Of course, my stance presumes that things like equality and health are improvements. That we don't question that is a mark of human optimism, or at least non-evilness. If we were different, perhaps the improvements would be slaughtering everyone in a 100 mile radius of us and living in huts made of our enemies' bones. :blink:

[WaterWolf]

In my brutallly honest opinion, i think the world should just be left to progress. Global warming shouldn't be taken so much to heart, as it's been around for 20 million years. THE WORLDS CLIMATE USED TO BE EXTREMELY HOT, its the world progressing. These stupid schemes to go against it should be stopped and made optional.

Wars shouldn't be stopped, because as much as its hated, these people are given jobs. It's their choice, they aren't forced. Wars are natural disagreements. How else can they be settled, playing Call of Duty?

Although my argument is mostly invalid, some people just see my thoughts through. Nothing should change, people should do what they want.

[Mistermook]

Why present a "mostly invalid" opinion? It's the equivalent of saying "I know smoking is bad for me, but I keep smoking because it won't hurt me."

Uh yeah, about that...

No one forces us to not kill each other and to destroy the environment either, therefore in a system of perfect freedom we're still philosophically allowed to not be assholes about it. The planet? It used to be a ball of burning rock too. Personally I'm for avoiding that, if only for purely selfish reasons.

[ElementMK]

What starts as a ball of extremely hot elements must end as a ball of extremely hot elements. It's the fourth law of thermodynamics.

Wars can be stopped with diplomacy and cooperation, and they aren't necessary in the slightest. WaterWolf may not understand this unless she's forced to change her way of life because of a war. We could solve most of the disputes wars create by having world leaders grease up in their underwear and wrestle for ten rounds.

Go, Obama! I hear he's pretty limber.

[Oaktree]

In my brutallly honest opinion, i think the world should just be left to progress. Global warming shouldn't be taken so much to heart, as it's been around for 20 million years. THE WORLDS CLIMATE USED TO BE EXTREMELY HOT, its the world progressing. These stupid schemes to go against it should be stopped and made optional.

Wars shouldn't be stopped, because as much as its hated, these people are given jobs. It's their choice, they aren't forced. Wars are natural disagreements. How else can they be settled, playing Call of Duty?

Although my argument is mostly invalid, some people just see my thoughts through. Nothing should change, people should do what they want.

Do you think that the world would be ideal with a harsh climate and constant warring, though? It may be difficult to avoid these things realistically, but many people in this thread have talked about things that they would consider ideal, even if those things are unlikely to happen.

Your argument seems to be based mostly on what is convenient in the short-term, rather than what is best in the long-term. In the short-term, it is easier or more convenient to waste resources (wasting finite natural resources is a problem whether you think we're increasing global warming or not) and to avoid the learning and compromise necessary to cooperate with other countries. In the long-term, however, it is worth the extra effort to recycle and make peace. It may be that you truly care more about the short-term, but I would disagree with you.

Now, I don't think that we can force people to recycle or that we can step in on international disputes that we have no business being involved in, though some people here might disagree with me. I think that the best way to accomplish these things is to educate people and persuade them through reason. I don't think we'll ever reach the epitome of an ideal society, but I think it is best to strive for it, even if you never really get it. Striving for it may at least get you closer to it.