The world

[Nofriends]

Why are people so damn stubborn? Why cannot people agree that bombing Africa, the middle east, North Korea and China to be one big step for establishing world peace?
The next step would be to massacre a majority of the prison populations and to form smaller government and decrease government regulation of businesses, and then reform the education system and put in place corporal punishment for those who believe diseases like socialism and communism to be beneficial for the poor.
We would also devise a new monetary system which didn't put countries into huge debt.
Change of mind: instead of massacring the prisoners we would use them for slave labor.
Then we would invest more into education and research and develop automation, then all the slaves would be killed and humans would live in peace, it would be like the shire in the lord of the rings.

Anyways, I will be heavily criticized for my views on how to make a peaceful world, but as it stands that this is the best way to go.

 

[Nofriends]

please calm yourself and do not come here to cry like a 12 yr old

 

[Rook]

World peace? End of suffering?

Why!?

Peace, this is not the state of true humanity.
It is a state of herd placidity, of contentment with one's alterable spiritual and physical limitations

True humanity is suffering, joy, tragedy and tranquility, true humanity is a quagmire of desire and thought, it is not as two dimensional as your dualistic disease of contemporary morality posits it to be.

This democratic disease, this taming of a species that is even now infecting Africa under the force of 'enlightened nations', the last ancient continent, the last vestige of an uncorrupted organism.

So you wish to replace our specie's true, primal nature with the western ideals of miniature tyrannies, of limited dictatorships(companies, monopolies, the 'free market')? Power limited to small spheres, power that hides and connives instead of boldly announcing its nature like the empresses and pharaohs of old? Power that oppresses the spirit instead of inspiring an organism to greatness? Power that embraces the mundane and the superficial?

If the world is at peace, if none suffer, that is the day that humanity is defeated, that the very purpose of our existence is annulled, that is the day that our evolution is rendered void.

When one seeks to overcome nature one may just as well overcome life and end it all, for to wish that the ant does not eat the worm or that the leopard does not kill the child is to wish that the universe is not as it is, to wish that life is not life and nature is not nature.

It is idealism that defeats the mind, a circular fantasy that limits the spirit. It is a religion.

 

[Architect]

Childish.

The best tool for peace is economic reform. Noticed how the military only uses force to compel a country to become some kind of capitalistic democratic society? And it doesn't have to be that way, WWIII has been avoided because China is now producing the majority of goods for the West.

Africa is next. Most of the steel production is moving from China to Africa now in search of cheap labor (Chinese wages have increased you see due to the economic development). That's a good thing. The outlier is the Middle East. They have nothing to offer beyond oil and culturally are still in the bronze age in parts.

 

[Nofriends]

​

Childish.

The best tool for peace is economic reform. Noticed how the military only uses force to compel a country to become some kind of capitalistic democratic society? And it doesn't have to be that way, WWIII has been avoided because China is now producing the majority of goods for the West.

Africa is next. Most of the steel production is moving from China to Africa now in search of cheap labor (Chinese wages have increased you see due to the economic development). That's a good thing. The outlier is the Middle East. They have nothing to offer beyond oil and culturally are still in the bronze age in parts.

My concern lies in PC, the destabilization of the middle east = Muslims imposing their ideology, I fear that the same will happen in Africa.
Aside from Japan, Asian nations are a problem because they will out advance us, because US high schools are mass producing socialists which ofc = debt... As a result we (a) destroy all of these toxic socialists or (b) destroy these countries before we lack the resources to gain a technological edge.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The world's been at peace for a long time actually. Most of the borders on earth have been established and there are few destabilizing tensions here and there but that's about it. Once the world is all connected via the tubes it's possible that there might be everlasting peace. The only discord we might have are internal ones.

We're talking within the context of nations, of course. State vs state conflicts are a bygone era now, or we're approaching the end of it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

World peace? End of suffering?

Why!?

Peace, this is not the state of true humanity.
It is a state of herd placidity, of contentment with one's alterable spiritual and physical limitations

True humanity is suffering, joy, tragedy and tranquility, true humanity is a quagmire of desire and thought, it is not as two dimensional as your dualistic disease of contemporary morality posits it to be.

This democratic disease, this taming of a species that is even now infecting Africa under the force of 'enlightened nations', the last ancient continent, the last vestige of an uncorrupted organism.

So you wish to replace our specie's true, primal nature with the western ideals of miniature tyrannies, of limited dictatorships(companies, monopolies, the 'free market')? Power limited to small spheres, power that hides and connives instead of boldly announcing its nature like the empresses and pharaohs of old? Power that oppresses the spirit instead of inspiring an organism to greatness? Power that embraces the mundane and the superficial?

If the world is at peace, if none suffer, that is the day that humanity is defeated, that the very purpose of our existence is annulled, that is the day that our evolution is rendered void.

When one seeks to overcome nature one may just as well overcome life and end it all, for to wish that the ant does not eat the worm or that the leopard does not kill the child is to wish that the universe is not as it is, to wish that life is not life and nature is not nature.

It is idealism that defeats the mind, a circular fantasy that limits the spirit. It is a religion.

Very well put. Your vocabulary shines here.

However, i think expecting total stagnation from a little global-scale ethnocide is an overestimation. Surely the dynamics you mention would remain even if the worst parts of the human world were completely obliterated. I mean, the dark ages amd the plague have long passed and yet drama prevails.

 

[Rook]

Very well put. Your vocabulary shines here.

However, i think expecting total stagnation from a little global-scale ethnocide is an overestimation. Surely the dynamics you mention would remain even if the worst parts of the human world were completely obliterated. I mean, the dark ages amd the plague have long passed and yet drama prevails.

You're right, without a doubt our species will not triumph over nature that easily and that quickly. >.<

While the concept of a peaceful utopia is fanciful, the belief in it exists.
Even if their perfect world can not be created, the conviction in its validity forms the will and actions of these true believers.

So, for instance, even though a god does not exist, believers form the world and people around them to accept its existence as an absolute truth. Once that belief is the prevalent belief, forcing it upon others becomes more and more acceptable, and easier.

The indoctrination of northern and southern pagans into the christian faith is equatable here. Recent centuries show clearly the breeding of the democratic spirit, more so now, where countries throughout Africa and the middle east are continually being pressured(economically, militaristically and spiritually) to be 'democratic', to be 'free' (be like us, oh you errant nations! Follow our gospel as blindly as we do!)

Many Asian and South American states are almost defeated in this regard, this coming century it will be quite interesting to see whether this trend will continue unabated, or not...

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

If the world is at peace, if none suffer, that is the day that humanity is defeated, that the very purpose of our existence is annulled, that is the day that our evolution is rendered void.

I like your poetry and all that. But in this case it's simply leading you into grandiose bullshit.

There will never be peace or equality, such absolutes are unachievable, what is at stake however is a relatively undisturbed existence, free from major conflicts or disasters and this is what people know as "peace".

Not sure if there exists a conceptually preferable vision for the humanity's future, I prefer to think of humans as potentially free reigning particles.

Finally, who cares about evolution, it is we who give meaning to ourselves and the world around us. If we choose to devolve into "lesser" things then so be it.

In the coming centuries humanity won't be the center of man's attention, there will be new frontiers, the space will become accessible, we don't have to worry that a single well managed and peaceful planet will annul our opportunity for exploration or growth elsewhere.

It's questionable whether local tyrannies are any better than secretive hierarchies of democratic regimes. Maybe the worst of all would be a potential for losing the cultural diversity.

Peace mostly enables humans to work out their own flaws and see how they fit within the system, or struggle to build alternatives. Peace is an open book that doesn't enforce a dramatic narrative the way a war does. It is a greater challenge to find one's way during peace, where direction isn't provided, than it is to conform to the necessities of survival during crisis.

 

[Seteleechete]

Mm, the peaceful totalitarian "Utopia". Except it isn't much of an Utopia. Peace might be achieved in such societies but the cost is usually enormous.

These kind of ideas remind me of Psycho-Pass(which I consider among the worst dystopian societies).

 

[Sinny91]

Why are people so damn stubborn? Why cannot people agree that bombing Africa, the middle east, North Korea and China to be one big step for establishing world peace?

I know I've already told you once before, but I'm going to tell you again, you're an ignorant, trollish bigot.

The next step would be to massacre a majority of the prison populations and to form smaller government and decrease government regulation of businesses, and then reform the education system and put in place corporal punishment for those who believe diseases like socialism and communism to be beneficial for the poor.
We would also devise a new monetary system which didn't put countries into huge debt.
Change of mind: instead of massacring the prisoners we would use them for slave labor.
Then we would invest more into education and research and develop automation, then all the slaves would be killed and humans would live in peace, it would be like the shire in the lord of the rings.

Anyways, I will be heavily criticized for my views on how to make a peaceful world, but as it stands that this is the best way to go.

Your aim here is to incite and agitate.
I acknowledge that - and think you're a dick.

 

[Nofriends]

Mm, the peaceful totalitarian "Utopia". Except it isn't much of an Utopia. Peace might be achieved in such societies but the cost is usually enormous.

These kind of ideas remind me of Psycho-Pass(which I consider among the worst dystopian societies).

it is not totalitarian, people should repudiate what chooses to do wrong, repudiate what destabilizes.

The costs are infinitesimal.
Give it two generations and everyone is happy, you rid the continents of dead bodies and harvest the lands and people have to work for a limited time, just like in rome.

 

[Analyzer]

People don't regard freedom as their highest value, they often fear it to the point they can't imagine a life of freedom. Not until this is resolved, humans will keep engaging the hundred of centuries perpetual cycle of war, conquest, and force. New political organization after another, forgetting that it is not possible to organize a social unit perhaps bigger than a family or town.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

@Analyzer, how would you define freedom, in the sense that you are using it?

At all times, there exist restrictions on what we may do, and options as to what we may do.

I would perhaps posit freedom as being the reduction in restriction, and increase in options.

This would, perhaps, require going against the path of least resistance.

 

[Analyzer]

@Analyzer, how would you define freedom, in the sense that you are using it?

At all times, there exist restrictions on what we may do, and options as to what we may do.

I would perhaps posit freedom as being the reduction in restriction, and increase in options.

This would, perhaps, require going against the path of least resistance.

There are natural restrictions(actual laws such as gravity) and man-made ones. Any of these man-made restrictions that violates one's autonomy or free association between individuals is wrong, period. This is the starting principle for morality, but freedom is not high in most peoples scales of value so like you say, the path of least resistance is followed. Usually this means exploiting others. The free society that libertarians seek to achieve, is an unrealizable ideal, at least in our current epoch.