1. Create a world without borders and wars. 2. Make sure we don't run out of water (especially down here in mexico!) 3. Feed everybody in the world. 4. Educate everybody in the world.
That's just to start. Any ideas?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robin, just to clarify: are you speaking only to OSC, or were you actually intending to engage other people in conversation?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. We shouldn't get rid of borders. 2. It is impossible to run out of water. We can turn salt water into drinking water. Mexico should try cleaning their water. 3. We could try to stop wasting so much food, but, I don't see that happening. 4. YES! We can start by having America stop wasting our time with busy work.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's just not economically the best decision for the major producers. So people starve.
If you want to move from the current world to one without borders, well, I'd say that's rather impossible. I could see a feasible elimination of a lot of territorial lines. Most of Europe could get rid of theirs, maybe Canada and America. But the rest of the world isn't in a position to get rid of borders, and if they did so, it'd bring about more war than peace.
You want a solution to all those problems? Release a virus that kills off half the world's population. Less mouths to feed, brains to educate, hands to bear arms.
The world isn't going to solve most of those problems without either a major philosophical shift in world view, or a huge economic incentive. Which by the way, currently exists, but the world at large is too comfortable with the status quo to make use of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn's response reminds me of a short story that I very much enjoyed. unfortunately I can't remember the title, but...
The premise was a teenager who built a supercomputer capable of solving any problem in the world, so naturally the teen asked the computer to figure out a way to achieve world peace. The computer did, but warned the teen that he wouldn't like it. The boy didn't care; he was ecstatic! World peace, oh boy! He told the computer to take the actions required, and immediately the computer detonated all the nuclear weapons in the world. The surviving cockroaches lived in perfect harmony.
I'm not saying that the world can't get a whole lot better than it is now, but it's never going to be ideal. I don't think there's a chance at the kind of utopia you're talking about, Robin. Once there is that chance, the most pressing concern won't be education etc. so much as whether or not the human race will become extinct. And even then there will be conflict and "war" (I put it in quotes because it's hard not to when describing one between 10-odd people) --it won't go away. We're wired that way. Make all the laws and stuff you want, there will always be problems with them, and people who resist, and new issues created by the new laws. Round and round in the circle game. Or whatever.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Create a world without borders and wars. 2. Make sure we don't run out of water (especially down here in mexico!) 3. Feed everybody in the world. 4. Educate everybody in the world.
Nuke the entire earth and erradicate all life.
Voila, these problems don't exist anymore.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have to say, I don't agree with the idea that mankind will never reach that level of utopia, or that it will take the length of time you seem to be implying. Mankind has made progress by leaps and bounds in the four or five thousand years since it achieved any sort of intelligent civilization. Who's to say that the next five to ten thousand years aren't what it takes to get us to some sort of peaceful utopia?
I think as a species we make progress, but it isn't always constant. Sometimes we have to slide back a little bit in order to realize what we were clawing our way towards to begin with. What is hardwired into our brains is the will to survive. Everything after that is your software, not your hardware.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Robin, just to clarify: are you speaking only to OSC, or were you actually intending to engage other people in conversation?
Do you really need to ask in a public forum? In this forum, Scott is like the 'big chief' so out of respect you ask him, but yer always open to opinions wot?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robin, I think I'm with you on most of this.
We really need to work like mad if we're gonna survive as a species.
The thing I see is that technology advances over time to put more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This means at some point, a single person could have the power to destroy the whole world. What kind of society could survive if that were true?
I would think it would be one in which every child grows up loved and well-educated, with clean water to drink, good nutrition and medical care, in which everyone has equal opportunity to acheive their good dreams. It will have to be one that's a lot saner and healthier than what we have now.
I think it has to be a free society, because oppressive governments are bad news on every front, economically, socially, educationally, and from a public health perspective.
What ideas have you got for things we should work on first? I think third world clean water initiatives, an asteroid defense, and curricula in every major university worldwide on "Averting Human Extinction". Probably we need an Averting Human Extinction place on the web, too.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the days are gone when we can dismiss the third world from our consciousness, as though they have nothing to do with us. We are all together on this little ark called the earth.
One thing I see is that we need to build up by a large amount the goodwill and community feeling over the whole human family on earth. We need to know each other personally. The web can certainly help there.
I've had ideas for a sort of wikipedia of personal stories. Maybe it's a bit like online journals, or blogs, but I see it being searchable by location and age and gender. Also we need some mechanism to easily translate these into whatever language. So if I want to know what life is like for a 10 year old Afghan girl, or a 25 year old guy in a U.S. prison, or a 90 year old lady living in a nursing home in Kyrgyzstan, then I can do that search, and have a way to translate.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone's problems are everyone else's problems now.
The translation problem, I thought could be helped a lot if there were an online game, a simple addictive game, that two people could play who didn't share a common language, that would have the side effect of teaching them both some of each other's language.
I've played over 20,000 games of Freecell, and gained nothing from it for all those hours of time. I can imagine a game that's at least as addictive as Freecell, in which for the same investment of time, I could have learned at least the rudiments of several languages by now. If we had such a game and it were to get really popular, then I can imagine obscurer and obscurer languages becoming trendy. Soon it's no big deal at all to know the 10 or 12 top languages, and people would be seeking out Urdu or Basque or Navajo, for the coolness factor.
I called the game "The Tower of Lebab".
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, there is the associated problem of getting most humans access to the web. Here we have public libraries where people can get online. I heard of a project to put a web access terminal in remote African villages. Soon the young kids were figuring out how to use it, with no training at all. I wonder how that project is progressing?
We need to try a whole lot of things and see what works.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Scott is like the 'big chief' so out of respect you ask him
While that might be the case on the other side of the river, it's not usually here. Mr. Card rarely posts here. You'll also notice you'll get more replies on your posts if you ask the board, not just the owner.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another initiative that sounds like it's doing the right thing to me is International Development Enterprises, who set up small businesses in third world countries which manufacture and sell things such as treadle pumps in Bangladesh, which allow the very poorest farm families to double or quadruple their income. The technology has to be able to be manufactured and repaired using local resources and local labor, so that it represents a real step up, rather than a gift of modern technology, that someone handed to a village, for example, that will wear out and break in time and not be replaceable.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the people who are working on these problems are associated with various churches. Here are some more links I've gathered of things that seem fruitful.
I-TEC works on developing technology to help stone age people living in the Ecuadorean rain forests. They've made a "dentist's office in a backpack" that greatly extends the villagers' lives by keeping their teeth healthy. Apparently when you grow up in a society with only stone-age technology, your teeth rot and fall out by the time you're around 25 or 30, and then you can't really eat and you tend to die very young. Dentistry is one of the best gifts we have to give such societies.
Lifewater is an initiative to bring clean safe water to all the world's children. It's got a lot of engineering expertise.
posted
I still don't understand the six year deadline.
If that's real, it's probably already too late -- I can't imagine any initiative that would accomplish any one of those 4 goals inside of six years.
Do we get credit for starting thought? In which case, I do have some suggestions to offer:
1) borders -- it's not the country borders, but the governments that need rethinking. A one-world government (i.e., no borders, but still some measure of individual security from outright banditry) would simply multiply the flaws we already see with existing governments -- even the good ones. Instead of abolishing borders, or governments, we should work toward a recognized freedom of migration. Not necessarily completely open borders, but better ways to ensure that people who do wish to migrate don't just become victims, or a burden for their new host country. A standard set of rules and conditions wouldn't be a bad idea.
2) running out of water is kind of like running out of sand. There's plenty of it out there, but distribution, and whether it is in a usable form or not is the problem. And, of course, one person's use is another person's misuse. I suspect that for much of the world, desalination is going to play an increasing role in the future. But yes, water management is a real priority and to do that well, you can't have massively corrupt governments.
3) Feeding everyone is a great idea. And it's horrible that we (as a world) don't do that. I have heard the arguments against it -- feed the hungry and they'll breed more hungry people; they have to make it on their own, etc, etc. I just don't buy it. I think we should simply cease all production of alcohol for human consumption until the world is fed.
4) Educate everyone. Sure thing! Let's do it. We'll need a lot more teachers though. And we'll have to be willing to pay them. But I'm all for it. I suggest that a reorientation of our tax dollars to go for this, and food aid, is a great idea.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana: thanks for excellent resources and responses. I am working on a few private inicitatives having to deal with my own country, which if would work, could have a strong impact on the border issues. Its absurd that our 'human rights' do not include the right to go anywhere on earth we want. But then, my view on 'human rights' is that as long as we have war, there are no human rights because the first and foremost important right is that of life and war takes that right away.
Bob (not the lawyer): Democracy will not accomplish our needs in time. The democratic process is self defeating because the will of the people tends to be egoist and not really too interested in the problems of others, especially others in other countries. For that you need a Philosopher King (or ruthless dictator, however you prefer to think of him) Napoleon and Alexander the Great is more the model of leader that could accomplish what I'm talking about in enough time to prevent the massive bloodshed that is coming over us unless we deal with these issues realistically.
1. Borders - Well, it's as simple as a country having a Nation declarare that it has no borders. Anybody from any place can belong to that country so long as they pay tribute to it's Emperor. The Emperor then has the responsability of assuring that it's subjects can travel safely to any place on earth.
2. Water - (a) Absolute zero deforestation. Not one tree that isn't sick or dying will be cut. Not one. Older trees will need special protection. (b) massive funding for desalination plants and pipilines from the ocean to the big cities. Each city must produce and contain it's own water resources independently, no city will be allowed to pull fresh water from other towns, as is in the case of California (which pulls water from Colorado), Mexico City, etc. The biggest, brightest and best minds in the world will be strongly financed by the One World Nation State (and it's Emperor) to resolve the water issue NOW! Pronto fasto!
4. Feeding everybody. The Emperor will be forced to implement the numerous plans that already exist to do this.
5. Educate everybody. In order of importance regarding the budget spending for Empire, this will be the 5th priority of Empire.
Of course, these reforms are brutal and certain givens, like private property and such will have to be dissolved.
But hell, better to fulfill a Mayan Prophecy and feed everybody than to keep fighting useless little oil wars (which will one day be water wars anyhow).
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But hell, better to fulfill a Mayan Prophecy and feed everybody than to keep fighting useless little oil wars (which will one day be water wars anyhow).
You know, I reject this assertion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prophecies bend to fit circumstances. I wouldn't worry about fulfilling any prophecies. I would instead just make your own. It's like treebeard said, they bear fruit in their own time, and sometimes they are withered untimely.
I don't like your plan because it sounds far too draconian. Read the Tao te Ching and think about what you can and can't force people to do. I like philosopher-leaders, because the wisest and best hearts among us should lead. And it's true that democracy doesn't seem to elect those. But wise hearts know that oppressive governments are a big mistake on every level. They do more harm then good.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hardest thing of all, as you can see right here in this thread, and it's true on every level, is gaining a consensus. That is what a real leader is gifted at doing. Unless our hearts are as one, in some important ways, then we can accomplish very little.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something that concerns me about desalinization plans is the question of what is done with the salt. If it is dumped back into the water, is it possible that we will eventually increase the salinity of to oceans enough to have an impact on marine life?
Of course, melting glaciers are dumping loads of fresh water into the system now, so maybe it will all even out?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But wise hearts know that oppressive governments are a big mistake on every level. They do more harm then good.
Someone CLEARLY isn't reading enough fantasy novels. The good and noble kings and emperors always end up doing what's best for the people, or a charismatic, demonstrative young hero convinces them to start doing so.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
<laughs> erosomniac, good and noble monarchs make excellent rulers, if wise, but there is the little problem of succession. Monarchy isn't a system I would choose to live under.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But wise hearts know that oppressive governments are a big mistake on every level. They do more harm then good.
Someone CLEARLY isn't reading enough fantasy novels. The good and noble kings and emperors always end up doing what's best for the people, or a charismatic, demonstrative young hero convinces them to start doing so.
Isn't that why those stories are always in fantasy novels? Every one wants them but they never happen?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's easier in fantasy novels, where you know someone is a good king if his magical balls glow blue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But wise hearts know that oppressive governments are a big mistake on every level. They do more harm then good.
Someone CLEARLY isn't reading enough fantasy novels. The good and noble kings and emperors always end up doing what's best for the people, or a charismatic, demonstrative young hero convinces them to start doing so.
Well, the problem with that is that the good and noble kings and emperor's AREN'T oppressive governments. They're benevolent governments.
Just because there is a dictator in power, be it a King, Emperor or any other title you want to give them, even President, it doesn't automatically assume it is an oppressive government. If you want to use fantasy as a guide, Aragorn was a dictatorial ruler, but his rule was kind, incredibly forgiving, and benevolent, to the benefit of all. Sauron on the other hand would have been the most ruthless of dictators. Same kind of rule, totally different outcome.
In the past there have been rulers both oppressive and not oppressive that have left their empires in much better shape than when they first got there. Augustus Caesar did wicked things both in office and on his way there, but I daresay the empire would never have lasted as long as it did, or grown as large as it did without the reforms he put in place.
It's hard to make blanket statements about that sort of stuff, there's almost always an exception.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your saying good government is not dependent on one specific beaurocratic system. I agree with that.
What does it take for a leader to be a good one? This is a tough one, because you can look at the lasting results, like Ceasar, or the short term challenges, like Bush. History hasn't had a chance to decide that Bush was the worst president we ever had, and maybe (by some miracle) something he does will go really well and he will be vindicated by time. In that case, history will forget all the horrible things he tried to do and how many people suffered over it, because we'll all be focused on the outcome. Very Machiavellian of history to do that.
Also is being a good leader the same thing as being a good person? Does it take a person with less moral sense to be a good leader, because he won't be afraid to make the hard choices? Is "The Xenocide" a bad person just because he is hated (even though he saves the world)? Is FDR a good person just because people love him, or because his policies turned out for the best? What if his policies hadn't turned out well? He would still be the same guy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some thoughts, with regards to history, and the questions you pose:
Off the top of my head I can think of two Romans who launched fruitless wars that claimed the lives of many Romans, destablized the region and caused Rome a headache for centuries to come. Crassus and Marcus Antonius both launched great wars against Persia. In the case of Crassus, it was a stupid attempt to gain glory and fame by getting more land, much as Caesar had accomplished in Gaul. But he failed horribly, and Persia crushed his army, and captures their gold standards, which they'd worshipped as physical manifestations of gods. The difference here being that Crassus was a banker, not a military commander, he had no business leading three or four legions against the Children's Crusade, let alone the might of the Persian Army.
Marcus Antonius (Marc Anthony) did the same, though when he lost (twice), he led his men out in style like a good commander does, as opposed to Crassus who committed suicide near modern day Baghdad. He would have been killed too if not for the help of Cleopatra's Egyptian army.
My point is that while history looks favorably (for the most part) on Marcus Antonius, it looks on Crassus with disdain. He started a war of conquest on a people who were far away, far removed, and had nothing to do with the Roman Empire at that time. The war he started didn't end for HUNDREDS of years, and while many would argue that it's a war that probably would have started anyway, he's still the man who pulled the proverbial trigger. He is NOT remembered fondly.
When you look at the cold facts of Bush's presidency, much of what stands out is numbers, in the same way that numbers are associated with FDR's presidency. We look at the unemploment numbers and how they changed for FDR's years, and the great deal of good that was done for the poor over that time. We look at President Bush and we see that the debt has been raised, as well as the deficit but record shattering numbers. He'll be remembered as the spend crazy president who didn't know how to operate his veto stamp.
Then there's the comparison between him and Crassus that I was trying to allude to. They started useless, fruitless wars that yielded nothing good for the home country and in general left the home country with a far greater enemy than before they went in. Unless something drastically good happens soon in Iraq, it'll be a black mark on his history page.
His domestic achievements are less than stellar, I think on the whole he'll be called a lackluster do-nothing when it comes to domestic policy. What policies he has made into law have been horrible failures on the whole, and I think many will fault him for cutting taxes in war time, which I think is fairly unprecedented in the history of government, let alone the United States.
I could go on forever about specific Roman emperor, so I'll leave my next bit to generalities. Good leaders can still be horrible people, and good people can often make horrible leaders. Both Augustus and Julius I think by many accounts were horrible people. Both married off their daughters a ridiculous number of times, in Augustus' case, she became a crazy nympho that slept with most every man in Rome before she was exiled for adultery, never to see another man again. But both did amazingly positive things for the Empire.
Trajan, Marcus Aurellius, those were both good men who did great things for the Empire.
I think history regards people for what they do, much more than who they are. History will RECOGNIZE the fact that someone is a good guy, but if he totally sucks in his job performance, he'll still get a bad rap. Genghis Khan could have the nicest guy you'll ever meet (he wasn't, but for the sake of a point), but you won't ever remember him for it. If you looked at a giant list of great rulers who accomplished great things, or took great leaps forward, I think often you will find that what they are known for is what they accomplished, much more than who they are as a person.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
