|
Post by Amalcas on Aug 13, 2006 22:29:18 GMT -5
This is something I've been thinking alot about recently, and I just wanted to see what people think about the future in general (i.e. what is the trend of the future). There was a thread similar to this, but I don't believe it truly covered this; not just if things are getting better or worse, but how. Okay, now on to my own view: The future of the world, logically, is tied strongest to how we relate to others (the increase in knowledge, and therefore power, being a constant). Historically, relationships (in this case, I refer mostly to large scale, such as international, but the same principles do apply on small scale) have been based primarily on power: if one is more powerful than the other, than he shall take from the other. However, with the constant exponential increase in knowledge, and therefore power, we as a people have reached a quandary: we have become too powerful to negotiate with power, as by this we would utterly destroy ourselves; we would commit xenocide. The question is, then: how to relate without the principle of power? But before even this, one must consider how to deal with those who still relate with power, even if one oneself does not; an interim principle of relations must be instituted for a world of mixed principles. What principle, then, can be used to counter aggression with the least amount of aggression? The answer, in fact, has already been institutionalized: collective security; should any among you raise arms against another, all should together rise and bid him stand down (note: I'm paraphrasing the Letters to the Kings, but I have no idea wherefrom.). With an interim principle set in place, a "final" principle can be designed. Simply enough, it is the extension of collective security: collective prosperity; should any among you become impoverished in any way, all should rise to his aid. What the world is currently experiencing is this transition; it is already long begun. In fact, you could say that it has always been inevitable. I predict a roughly thousand year period for this transition, in part because it requires a large number of other changes, particularly in the ideology of the masses. These changes are mostly in terms of understanding emotion and the nature of consciousness, and I could write several times as much as I already have just introducing the topic. In other words, I'll explain if you ask. Oh, and I do think things are going to get worse for a while, but not forever. Things always get better in the end. So, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Aug 15, 2006 15:18:23 GMT -5
I cant speculate about the future of the world due to the fact that there a countless events and people that will undoubtedly shape the future of the world.
A few comments on your view:
What does Xenocide mean? Does it mean destroying another species? We have already done that countless times (e.g. the Dodo) Does it mean destroying ourselves? Does it mean destroying Xenophobia? or is it something totally different to what I mentioned? (Sorry I dont understand the word)
You state that collective security is the answer. We already allegedly have that in the form of the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Oraganisation (NATO) and the European Union (EU). It hasnt worked so far and what makes you think it will work in the future? Even if you take the latest example of the whole Lebanon-Israel thingy you can see that it doesnt work so easily. On one hand you have nations like the USA giving Israel bombs to drop over Lebanon whilst classifying Hezbollah (a paramilitary organisation set up to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon) as a terrorist organisation, which of course means they cant be negotiated with (even though most Lebanese people support them) and the UK (well its only really Tony Blair) which supports the USA. The USA and the UK hold very important positions within the UN and when they show support for one side then how can peace be brokered?
You have a interesting idea of collective prosperity - I like it. However I dont think it can work. As someone gains doesnt another person lose? As the USA and Europe gain gold, diamonds and oil (for very cheap and in bulk) from corrupt governments who then embezzle the majority of the money and leave the nation with little then how can that nation become prosperous? Its also in the rich nations (USA and Europe) to keep the poorer nations in debt as it only makes these poor nations dependent on the rich nations and makes the rich nations more richer.
In my view the increase in knowledge is the key. I have had discussions about the problem with east Africa with a friend of mine from Darfur, Sudan (where a genocide is being commited and no one is doing anything about it - spread the word about the Darfur genocide). In east Africa not only is there draught, poverty and mass starvation but there is war and there are tribal conflicts. I personally believe the tribal mentallity is what is keeping these people behind. However the tribal mentallity can only be rid of through education. Infact I dont think the west should just throw money at these corrupt African governments but rather cancel their crippling debts and invest (10s to 100s of billions of dollars) in education. The same can be said of Afghanistan, Iraq and many other nations in Asia and the Middle East. This is not all that is required but it will be a start. Eradicating corruption is also essential.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 23, 2006 14:45:58 GMT -5
A hearty amen on the ending corruption thing.
I guess the question is how do we do it. If people would stop hating others and all the harmful activities that are done to harm them the world would become a really nice place very quickly.
Education can help, but if you only educate people in terms of skills and not morels you can make some very dangerous people. If you do educate in morals whose do you use?
I think one of the largest challenges for the future is how our world society will define right and wrong and how we will encourage or enforce those values.
Take Iraq the removing of a person as a leader of a country who likes to kill people makes a lot of sense for everyone he was trying to kill and their friends. At the same time who should be the muscle to remove him?
It is reasonable to believe that the world is safer if fewer countries have nuclear weapons, but who gets to have them and what means will be used to maintain that monopoly?
If everyone could just get along it would be nice, but how are we going to get there?
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Aug 25, 2006 16:42:00 GMT -5
Will, thought and action.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 26, 2006 7:32:03 GMT -5
And a lot of prayer.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Sept 15, 2006 21:36:02 GMT -5
A couple things before I really go in: First, "xenocide" technically means utter obliteration of all life. However, I intentionally misused the word to avoid confusion (thinking back, that didn't work too well ). The correct word is genocide, but genocide is often used to reference the systematic obliteration of a single culture, not of all humankind. Second, Teancum makes an excellent point; that imbalanced education between morals and skills can be quite dangerous (it can still be dangerous if too heavy on the morals, considering). Getting into my main...counter-comments, I suppose, I did not mean to state that collective security is an answer. I more meant to say that it is an intermediate, a jerry-rig, if you will. Collective security at least slows the blunt application of power, and hopefully lessens it. It is entirely true that as one gains, another loses. This, however, is not necessarily a problem, which is why your next two points are absolutely right: the increase in the total sum and distribution of knowledge and the elimination of corruption are both essential. Knowledge is peculiar, in as that it is the only resource that is not lost when given; it is simply duplicated. Therefore, if we are to solve a problem of insufficient resources, the root of the solution must be based in knowledge, as the only method by which to "create" new resources would be by translating knowledge into other forms of resources. So, with the proper amount and distribution of knowledge, we are guaranteed enough resources to go around, but how do we insure that they do go around? Eliminate corruption. I honestly have no real game plan for this one, except, perhaps, "will, though, action and a lot of prayer." To again be honest, I can see why the principle of collective prosperity would seem not to work; currently, it doesn't. There is quite enough corruption and, even if there is enough knowledge, it most surely is not distributed well enough. In fact, there have been attempts already to apply the principle of collective prosperity already: communism, for one (though I have a bone or two to pick with Marx and Lenin over some rather important details of the principle). Substantiating my point, communism has failed mostly due to two factors: the ignorance of the centralized government, causing economic ruin, and the corruption of the government, furthering this ruin. Again, though, I'm not exactly supporting the ideals of communism; personally, I can't really say if its, as we've seen it, any better or worse than moderated capitalism. I believe that covers everything. Well, all your comments, at least, Diana. I would be here a lot longer trying to cover everything...
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Sept 16, 2006 5:00:44 GMT -5
You probably mean teancum... I only made one comment.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Sept 16, 2006 18:32:36 GMT -5
Whoops. I meant Cenk. I believe your icons look similar out of the corner of my eye, at least late at night. ;D
|
|
|
Post by calyrelf on Sept 21, 2006 20:52:45 GMT -5
Second, Teancum makes an excellent point; that imbalanced education between morals and skills can be quite dangerous (it can still be dangerous if too heavy on the morals, considering). everything... Yes, that is an excellent quote. I agree.
|
|