A clarification: My position on genetics has never endorsed either genetic discrimination or genetic tampering.
What is being alluded to is genetic need, or much more simply, evolution.
Traditionally, genetics can offer up an interesting answer to large-scale problems. Insects, for example, can develop natural camouflage to an environmental change over the course of only a few generations.
Humans evolved on a different path than their primate counterparts, as physical prowess gave way to mental faculties as a determinant of strongest breeding stock.
Could a person capable of assuming Hegemony be a genetic leap forward? Could the mindset of global allowance for a leader be a step forward?
posted
My mindset already allows for one world leader. Am I the next genetic step? If so... all you hatrack ladies, look me up. I'm single.
Posts: 135 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hegemony cannot, and will not exist unless the world has been threatened to be destroyed, and the need of a united world under one government has been presented.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aye, but the threat IS unrecognized. The solution then, is to get people to seriously recognize the threat.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh nobody's going to destroy the world, probably. But I am slightly concerned that (a): The world may become un-inhabitable, merely as a result of what is now happening with the ozone layer, the air quality, and perhaps most importantly, the water table. (b): Even current over population, with the help of medicinal drug use, may lead to the all-to-quick evolution of a disease quite capable of exterminating every last one of us. (c): The current socialistic revolution, which, by and large I'm in support of, leads to tyranical despotism of the "Brave New World" genre. (d): Somebody finally comes up with the idea of a massive army of genetically engineered clones and subdues the whole world in a military despotism. Or, alternatively, somebody else figures out that the only way to fight the above person is to fight fire with fire, and then all hell breaks loose. A hell with which we have no idea how to deal. (e): Some idiot scientist, little realizing the the consequences of the action, comes up with some sort of REAL artificial inteligence, and the AI decides that it doesn't like humans. (f): though its a small chance compared to the others, but simply because it'd be so easy to do, that some person or other,(quite possibly an arab) who's had his whole family killed, gets mad enough, and is smart enough to figure out how, will kill us all, be it by bug or be it by bomb.
All of these have a large enough chance of happening. Anyway, we can't just forget the little things either, like nuclear wars, oversized asteroids and comets, global warming(and I'm talking air conditioning won't help much at 200 degrees), an insect takeover that we can't stop, and last but probably least, the invasion of little green men.
So yeah there's common threats enough, we just gotta get people to realize them.
posted
sutranafs, while your ideas on the threats to the world are valid, some of them seem unlikely. (I think a scientist who knew enough to create real I (it stops being Artificial, then, I think)would probably also know how to make it NOT hate humans.)Those which are here now (i.e. Ozone layer, population) are all problems that can and, I have faith, will be solved.
The threat I spoke of is the threat of nuclear war.
posted
There's a fair possibility of a scientific genius that is not a moral genius. Nevertheless, I personally have faith that all of the above problems can be solved or prevented from occuring. A nuclear war, no less. From which angle do you fear one? What we need to do to unite the world under a common cause and government is to unite it under common danger(s). The people who are good(1%) will join us in our quest for a higher moral standard, the people who are evil(<1%) may fight against us, but the people who are mediocre(>98%) will join us only if they they see the personal benefit.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, how do we make sure the evil, clever people don't take control of our World Unification Movement and use it to make themselves Hegemon? I'm reminded of Hero's Blood, back in th' day... only more clever. The Achilles character.
Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't know about that, Steel, courage can sometimes prevail where brains have failed. The reverse, given time, is never true.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
But seriously, if there was a successful world unification movement, it would definently be spearheaded by someone with lots of ambition, and probably bad intentions. Anybody read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."? By Heinlein? We need a Mannie. hell, we need a de la Paz!
Did anyone else notice that Shadow Puppet's Peter was a wuss? Like, really really wuss? The strongest character was Han Tzu, and he killed him off.
posted
Just kind of keeps on doing what he did when 'elected'. Peter, for example, kind of pittled out after SotH. He's not Locke anymore, just kind of teenage Hegemon boy Peter.
Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My chief problem with Peter is that he's starting to get really overconfident. I mean, he used to be justified (He was Locke/Hegemon, after all) but now he just kind of expects things to go his way. And his parents helped out WAY too much.
Posts: 135 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't care about spoilers, I just would like to better understand what they're talking about. Abyss? Reed?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
***SPOILERS AHEAD! WHOOOOP! WHOOOOP! RAISE APATHY SHEILDS! RED ALERT!***
There's actually one point where they drag him out of bed. With ice water.
And another point where he says "Maybe Alai should be Hegemon.. *whine whine, my life is hard*"
Locke wouldn't / shouldn't say that! Arrogant Peter Wiggin?!? Thinking another person is qualified to rule? What in the hell? A fluke on OSC's part, I think. Lost some of the characterization, in my opinion.
***SPOILERS BEHIND!! WHOOOP!! WHOOOP!! FORGET WHAT YOU JUST READ!! SITUATION NORMAL!! STANDBY FOR ANALYSIS!!***
I think Peter was just being humbled in Shadow Puppets, and he didn't take it well. Just because he was acting like a baby because people made him feel stupid doesn't mean he will not get over it in the next book. I think humility is important in a leader and that it doesn't show weakness. In my opinion, Peter will prove to be all the stronger in the next book, and I don't think it is a flaw on the part of OSC. Ender did write The Hegemon about how Peter brought the world together and proved to be not only an effective leader, but a good one, didn't he?
posted
It seems to me that saying that was within Peter's character. He was just frustrated because he was being outsmarted, so he just resorted to childishness. Then his parents gave him a good smacking upside the head and he came back to his senses.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
::bump:: Not that the thread needs it, but I just find it interesting (though not surprising) that this thread is still thriving. See, the last time I posted on this thread was April 16th, and that was under a different username. Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
It would certainly make me feel much better if there was a truly caring and capable leader in this country...
Tony Blair's (prime minister of England)is about the best leader I know of, but then again media can make almost anyone look good, and what do I know?
It's sad that we have to make do with what we have, but it's true (I know I'M not stepping up to the plate anytime soon)
ps: if you can tell I haven't read many of these posts, its because I haven't- who CAN read 438-some posts?! So anyway, sorry if it's totally unrelated...
Wow, this baby has grown. What have you been feeding it? Not bologna, I hope. Just wondering, where does the U.N. fit into all this? Not that I particularly care for the U.N., I just wanna know. And, if we're going to fight things like viruses and other science-related battles we'll need more than just the leadership of one man, won't we? Or, would we?
Oh, by-the-by, Humani. I was just reading your response to my post on page 8. But, I wasn't just talking culturally biased law. I'm talking about world unification, man. It's like this far out thing where the people are one. I was just trying to say that cultural and religious differences would hinder the unification, on a separate level from just legal. Maybe I'm not saying it right. Or, perhaps, I have misunderstood you. I thought that you were talking about turning the world into one people. But, perhaps you were just trying to make one people's government? Of course, I still kinda feel that growing up in different parts of the world and being taught different things would affect law making. But, you said all that would be taken care of at smaller levels, and I agree. But, if all these places have their own respective laws and all live in harmony, why would you need a Hegemony anyway?
[This message has been edited by Glass (edited November 15, 2002).]
posted
Uh, people who say that, oddly enough, tend to get bitched at a lot on this thread. But I'd certainly like to hear your plans suntranafs@hotmail.com if you have any. Or what the heck, just justify your reasons for applying right here, as this thread seems to be otherwise dead.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
