At the Brink of Civilisation

Thank you all for the overwhelmingly positive responses

I would just like to respond to some of the issues raised thus far:

Originally posted by METACOMET
Tell me how we can accomplish your vision without bureaucracy, centralized planning, theft, socialism, dependence, pauperization, inefficiency, greed and waste? How do we do it without converting the world into a nursery of policemen and self-serving busybodies?
[edit on 18-10-2008 by METACOMET]

This sentiment of course summarises much of the problems standing in the way of achieving the goal of an absence of suffering. I do not here wish at all to propose a fully fleshed out plan as to solve these issues. I merely wish to raise the point that they can be solved, fairly easily, as long as people put aside their bureaucratic barriers. No easy feat, I know.

Originally posted by camain
What you are asking is for the most rich nations in the world, to tax there citizens in order to provide cash to solve the worlds problems.

This is largely the thrust of my argument, that solving these problems would not require any additional taxation from anyone. The money is floating about in places such as war budgets etc. and the banking accounts of the greedy.

1.) this is unconstitutional in the U.S., It is NOT the responsibility of our government to eliminate poverty ANYWHERE, but in the U.S.A.

Again, this is the second point I am trying to make. Humanity is essentially responsible to just that, humanity, first and foremostly, above and beyond any artificial 'international' boundaries.

3.) you are assuming that everybody on earth deserves the right to live in a first rate nation. The simple fact is that if this were to happen, it would be globally catasprophic.

That is a frightening comment. You seem to assume that people suffer for your own personal benefit? That essentially a large proportion of the population should be slaves to the whim of another portion?
And again, if you were to read my post, you would realise that I do not propose lifting everyone to the living conditions of a first world nation, but merely ending their completely unnecessary immediate suffering.


What I find most disturbing about this whole situation is the way in which the powers that be have convinced people that global suffering is an insurmountable task, that it simply cannot be done, and most importantly, that if it were done, it would be at the expense of everyone else.

No one needs to 'suffer' to alleviate these peoples true suffering.

reply to post by The_Modulus


this just may be the most exciting and best thread I have ever read on ats...

thank you. star, flag and standing O!

agreed these tasks are anything but simple, but at the same time very do-able and possible.

even if some of your numbers are off a little (or even a lot) the money situation could be one of the easier obstacles to over come in my opinion...

when every single human being is able to have these modern amenities then and only then will we start to see the full potential of the human race come to fruition.

what an amazing world we could live in...

this actually gives some hope

reply to post by The_Modulus


While I respect to your view, I can none the less disagree with you.

"This is largely the thrust of my argument, that solving these problems would not require any additional taxation from anyone. The money is floating about in places such as war budgets etc. and the banking accounts of the greedy. "

You are stating to switch taxation from war, etc, to socialism. It is still taxation, you are having the rich pay to get the poor out of the gutter.

"Again, this is the second point I am trying to make. Humanity is essentially responsible to just that, humanity, first and foremostly, above and beyond any artificial 'international' boundaries."

no humanity has never been responsible for humanity. We are not herbavores, we are omnivores. We consume everything. Throughout our history, stronger civilizations have conquered and destroyed the week. That is the nature that is ingrained in us. While I would love to see rainbows, and fluffy bunnies, in reality I see a thunderstorm on the horizon, and a rodent that overbreeds the environment. You are asking us to dehumanize ourselves in order to accomplish our goals. Whether you consider it good or bad, it is the nature of us. we grow, we conquer, and we destroy. This is what we are, this is what our nature is.

Your concepts are nothing more then the "city on the hill", the preconcepts of communism and socialism. It failed, will continue to fail, and will always failed, because it doesn't factor in corruption, and our nature.

"That is a frightening comment. You seem to assume that people suffer for your own personal benefit? That essentially a large proportion of the population should be slaves to the whim of another portion?
And again, if you were to read my post, you would realise that I do not propose lifting everyone to the living conditions of a first world nation, but merely ending their completely unnecessary immediate suffering. "

I don't assume that people suffer for there own benefit. I assume they suffer for someone elses benefit. If we feed every african, or asian, the same as they feed me, an american, I would starve. On the same token, if they feed them at all, prices of food would be through the roof. No, in any situation there the haves, and have nots. Not everybody can be a "have" in order for you to have success, there must be the "have nots" and while its unfortunate that people live, and die horrendously, if they did not, my life style, and the life style of every rich nation would change so drastically, that your concepts would bring about war, destruction, and the very things you look to solve.

In order to accomplish what you want, there would need to be serious depopulation. What you propose isn't possible with 6 billion people. It would be possible with our technology of today and say 500 million. That however sounds like a NWO conspiracy now doesn't it.

Like I said before though, I like your post, and its admirable, its just not feasible.

With respect,

Camain

[edit on 18-10-2008 by camain]

reply to post by camain


I'm appalled and greatly disapointed with your mindset fellow human.

You seem to lack an understanding of the technology that is available to us. I assume as well you don't know what's being suppressed to us.
What patents are bought and paid for that would exponentially raise the standards of our living and way of life for all humans along with the enivronment we coexist in.

Also it's your lack of compassion or lack of desire to even humour the thought of the possibility of a full harmonic spectrum of living. Where there's equality and balance. No class but one class. Human class.

I strongly believe that we have a great chance for setting up the foundations of a global utopian society. Sadly our existence is also possibly on the verge of great demise and may resort back to the caves or face our own extinction by our own hands.

I should of been to the moon in a grade 6 field trip. Sadly priorities of the rich and elites are to not relinquish their power and lavish lifestyle.
Profiteering for the individuals sake posions any potential of us getting off our planet on a massive scale. We need to terraform Mars if we wish to keep populating.

The last act of violence and war should be made onto those whom willingly, delberately, connivingly conspire against our rights to the fruits of our labour.

We work together symbioticaly and would fail without out the dependence of one another. So we all should be equally allocated amongst ourselves to live just as good as one another.

If we are to plan on securing our species in these cosmos we exist in, nothing short of global commitment among all humans on the scale likend to that of the world wars dedication by us will achieve this.

The resources are there, the human power is there, unfortunately what seems to be lacking by some people is the will to act on such a noble cause. What would be more noble than to help achieve in creating a world where all our sons and daughters are born into having the same opportunities?

This will be the hardest thing to achieve, toppling this oligarchy. They are intrenched deep, well financed, and protected by highly trained military elites. Have access to the most advanced technology at their finger tips to be used at their disposal.

One thing I do know is they need us.......they need the workers and providers to design create and build the technology along with supporting the infrastructure to do so. We can use this as a tool against them.
know whom the suppressers are. know thier affiliates and their corporations. Boycott their poison.

Anyways this is merley my opinion and one suggestion to help release us from their shackles.

Great post OP and nice format and presentation. I strongly agree with you and cherish having such a human with a perception as yours.


p.s. something similiar to the Venus project should be our destiny, Remember this is only a handfull of peoples idea, imagine with the majority of the worlds input brought into perspective on it. I'm sure their would be a terrific medium for us all figured out, a balance. Which although not perfect for everyone, perfect for the whole. Perhaps Utopia.

www.thevenusproject.com


[edit on 18-10-2008 by GodshipForAll]

reply to post by camain


You can state the nitty gritty of Humanity (instinct), yet ignore our potential to evolve from a limited existence.

*sigh* Welcome to the 21st century. Please relax and enjoy the shift. Thank you for being here.

Why should I care about billions of people around the world who have nothing worthwhile to contribute to society? I think it's about as crazy to get into an uproar about how we have to protect the mentally retarded just because "they're people too". Well, yes, they are people. But they are less competent, less intelligent, and less worthwhile people. Resources should be funneled or seized by the most intelligent and functional members of society, not to the scum at the bottom of the barrel.

Let them fend for and care for themselves without outside assistance as the developed countries they've grown dependent on do and maybe they'll start to take care of themselves. Otherwise, you're just going to produce a nation of beggars who waste food simply by eating it to continue their own unproductive existences.

Edit: "Harmonic shifts, evolved societies, etc" are just hippy wet dreams where the power of emotions trumps logic and reality, creating an instant global utopia. There is no rational basis for such ideas, nor should anyone ever attempt to argue such ideas without discrediting the views he or she argues for.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Epinephrine]

Greed of the few and laziness of the many make your ideal impossible. What's in it for me? I have what I need, or I'll sit here and suffer and wait for someone to help me. How do you overcome either mindset on a worldwide scale?

Originally posted by Epinephrine

Why should I care about billions of people around the world who have nothing worthwhile to contribute to society?

The question should be How. Becuase in those billions of people are a potential work force to produce many benifits and possibly some of the greatest minds on the planet to come from. Maximum utilization of all available resources, including ourselves. This is the ignorant mindset that should not be allowed to flourish and it's nourished from uneducation.

I think it's about as crazy to get into an uproar about how we have to protect the mentally retarded just because "they're people too".

We don't have to do anything it's just a morally sound judgement and practice. Look at our state of genetic manipulation. There's the capability to make us all into suprahumans. Know our technology and science. Whom can afford such, perhaps only the richest? but whom are the ones developing such advancements in sciences?
Perhaps to others standards your useless or can be replaced or removed.

Well, yes, they are people. But they are less competent, less intelligent, and less worthwhile people. Resources should be funneled or seized by the most intelligent and functional members of society, not to the scum at the bottom of the barrel.

Your holding onto preconcieved notions and basing your opinions from our current social structure of working it seems to me. Think of a goal everyone can be apart of. We need a total revamp in all apsects of our way of life. These "scum" are products of an ill flawed system developed by us and spearheaded by the oligarchy. Were these people born "scum" is there a 1 in 25 birthrate of scumness?

Let them fend for and care for themselves without outside assistance as the developed countries they've grown dependent on do and maybe they'll start to take care of themselves. Otherwise, you're just going to produce a nation of beggars who waste food simply by eating it to continue their own unproductive existences.

Wow I wonder how we got so developed? It's not like we cheated, lied, stole, manipulated and raped our way now was it. Look at the blood of our history. We ruined cultures and races of people, we the developed ones. Now we have the potential to give these people back an opportunity to join us and become productive and be apart of the biggest goal for humankind. Or continuing ruining lives and parts of the world for our consumerisms.

"Harmonic shifts, evolved societies, etc" are just hippy wet dreams where the power of emotions trumps logic and reality, creating an instant global utopia.

I never said instant I suggest it's something to strive towards, and should best be done on a large dedicated scale. Look around my friend our world is in serious peril. Lets idly sit by and kill retards and scumbag babies.

There is no rational basis for such ideas, nor should anyone ever attempt to argue such ideas without discrediting the views he or she argues for.

How about self preservation of the species and our future. It would be achieved a lot quicker and efficiently if everyone was onboard and not being a hinderance by contradicting eachother and selling eachother out for a trickle feed of controlled ordinates of living.

Damn I'm trying to find this story of the sumerian god Enki and how he finds a job for everyone.....I haven't slept and will post it later on when I find it....I'm out.


Don't blind to the possible level we can raise ourselves to.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by GodshipForAll]

reply to post by smokingmonkey


What's in it for you.......I suggest we educate eachother and research suppressed sciences and technologies....... that's whats in it for us.....

It's should start in one country, unlock the patents, infact remove the patent system. It's heavily corrupted. Lead by example. Demonstrate how it's possible to build an alernative energy collector to fossil fuels to power a country. To meet our energy consumption and more. Demonstrate how we can build fully automated sky farms in a 36 story building that feeds 50,000 people consistantly. It's all there we have it figured out its just being suppressed by the oligarchy. There is so much we can be doing.
Imagine now if we do the opposites of war, what the world would be like.


It's just right now a war of ideologies it's either our way of life or their's.

And our masters use us as tools for thier gains. We are slaves the most of us in this society. Don't kid yourself.



[edit on 18-10-2008 by GodshipForAll]

Nice one - Modulus !

Fantastically well put together thread . S+F

Niall Mellon Township Fund



This i what some 1,400 Irish volunteer tradesmen + women do in Cape Town every year.
The goal was to build 200 houses in a week .
Its hard work , but they certainly enjoy themselves - i`m sure nothing tops the heartfelt thanks from the new occupants.
Just thought this might inspire someone /

edit ; just noticed you are from S. Africa / perhaps this was one of the projects you were referring too.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by UmbraSumus]

reply to post by Harman

Haven't you heard? The Communist Democrats are telling us that it is environmentally dangerous to build those desal plants. So we won't build them in America. Some fish, and snails may not die, and a whole lot of people will die. But what is more important? Nature! And humans are not part of nature. Actually, there are a number being built now in California, after the operators promised to do a lot to protect those snails and fish. It was invented in Israel, from what I understand, and they have had no problems, but instead have made the desert bloom. Same thing going on with the oil from America. We have enough oil here, now, to last us 1,000 years at current consumption, which, incidentally, is dropping fast. Under Gull Island in Alaska, they just found an oil field equal to the entire reserves of Saudi Arabia. We have a hugh, sweet oil field in North Dakota and Oklahoma. We have a huge field under the Rockies. Drill here, drill now! Communists be d...darned!

Originally posted by GodshipForAll
The question should be How. Becuase in those billions of people are a potential work force to produce many benifits and possibly some of the greatest minds on the planet to come from. Maximum utilization of all available resources, including ourselves. This is the ignorant mindset that should not be allowed to flourish and it's nourished from uneducation.

And here is where our viewpoints differ: it is self-evident to me by the society and way of life in third world nations that very little thought has gone into their way of life. In other words, they are not far from best and brightest in the world and the sudden birth of a person naturally inclined towards superior intelligence would be a freak genetic mutation, not the result of favorable traits passed down through stable, ongoing lineages. There is a genetic component behind intelligence that is not evenly spread throughout the world and it is superior genetic intelligence that has led to superior technology and social and global dominance, not "cheating, lying, stealing, and raping".

Global dominance has always been decided by whichever nation had the most intelligent weapon designs, production, and transportation. If the third world could ever really be as smart as the developed world, then they would have developed practical technology, beyond simple shelters, and a more orderly, stable society before other civilizations encountered them.

Your holding onto preconcieved notions and basing your opinions from our current social structure of working it seems to me. Think of a goal everyone can be apart of. We need a total revamp in all apsects of our way of life. These "scum" are products of an ill flawed system developed by us and spearheaded by the oligarchy. Were these people born "scum" is there a 1 in 25 birthrate of scumness?

You think that just because I don't want to waste my time with useless populations that I automatically support the status quo? The fact is that as long as there are genetically superior humans, they will always be outdated models with inferior genetics. If the superior humans are to ever reach their full potential, socially, technologically, and biologically, then they would be closer to the creation of a "utopian" society than we every will be. Wasting their time, efforts, and resources on obviously inferior beings would only be counterproductive to them and prevent natural selection from taking it's natural course in the inferior populations.

I never said instant I suggest it's something to strive towards, and should best be done on a large dedicated scale. Look around my friend our world is in serious peril. Lets idly sit by and kill retards and scumbag babies.

We could always take a more proactive approach to killing retards and worthless humans. If we compost their bodies, maybe we can solve world hunger while we're at it ;-)

Damn I'm trying to find this story of the sumerian god Enki and how he finds a job for everyone.....I haven't slept and will post it later on when I find it....I'm out.

When logic fails, turn to religion!

Don't blind to the possible level we can raise ourselves to.

I am not blind, I just disagree with your approach and propose a stable means of human development and improvement through selective breeding favoring intelligence(math, spacial, and logical, not artistic or emotional "intelligences") and unique, favorable cognitive abilities or physical traits. Emotional reactivity and goodwill are not long-term or stable solutions.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by GodshipForAll]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Epinephrine]

Three basic problems with these proposed solutions:

1) Money means nothing. Money is simply the way we establish prices in order to allow for the efficient distribution of resources. It is nothing more than numbers and pieces of paper. What matters is the underlying productive capacity. Do we actually have the productive capacity to accomplish these things? No, for two reasons. Take the world's GNP and divide it over the world's population, and you will find that even if we could somehow spread those resources equally, the cover would be very thin. Furthermore, the GNP we have depends upon the efficiency of markets to maximize output. If you were to force the world to build simple shelters, for instance, instead of allowing the markets to do their work, you would have a gross reallocation of production which would result in the misapplication of resources in inefficient ways, which would make everyone poorer.

2) There is no way to enforce it. There is no global authority to do this, and if there were, it would essentially be a world tyranny. Furthermore, history has shown that the larger an empire grows, the more unwieldy and inefficient it becomes. One world government would be a nightmare which would no doubt fail to distribute resources in the way you imagine.

3) People would not cooperate in making this happen. I will use myself as an example. I work very hard to give my family a nice standard of living. You would require all of us to work just as hard to still produce as much utility for the world to continue to function, but because I am on the wealthy end of the scale I would be required to allow much of that utility to be transfer to others around the world. Why would I continue to work so hard? Why would the most talented people on earth kill themselves with their labor in order to support a system which does not reward them? The truth is that we are individuals, and motivation matters.

What you propose is, in essence, communism. And that has been tried, and it has been an abject failure. I have gone around and around in my own head about this my entire adult life. I attained a degree in economics to learn about it. And despite my good intentions and sincere wish that we would achieve such a thing, I accept that it is impossible. You can either allow individuals to achieve and the intangible fruits of their achievements to benefit us all, or you can mire your nation or indeed the world in the soul-killing misery of universal poverty.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Grumble]

Going off from my other post.. Only focus on what you can do, if you are the only one working to solve a problem, and lets say you donate half your money to this cause, be happy with what you've accomplished. Don't think that because the entire world isn't fixed or that not everyone is on your side, that you've failed. There are no right or wrong answers to this, which is why each person needs to focus on themselves and do what they see as right in the world, not convert the other's to your mindset. Some people seem to have a self-righteous, I'm holier than thou, paternalistic attitude and it's not justified. Do what you can do to solve a problem that you see, and let others do the same.

reply to post by The_Modulus

I do not wish propose that all of the worlds problems can be solved overnight at the drop of a hat, but i hope that this at least puts the situation into a little perspective. Humanity clearly has many problems that it needs to sort out, and it seems as though we lack only the global will to do so. There is enough money, there are enough people, there are enough ideas and there is enough technology to make this work. There is no reason why anyone should be without these basic, fundamental necessities.

It is no longer a question of whether we can, but a question of whether we want to do something.

I think you're basically right. But that just begs the question, "why has it been so difficult to motivate people to solve these problems"? If you look at it that way it becomes a political problem, rather than a logistical problem.




[edit on 18-10-2008 by Distractions4Nothing]

Originally posted by The_Modulus
I would just like to respond to some of the issues raised thus far:

Originally posted by METACOMET
Tell me how we can accomplish your vision without bureaucracy, centralized planning, theft, socialism, dependence, pauperization, inefficiency, greed and waste? How do we do it without converting the world into a nursery of policemen and self-serving busybodies?

This sentiment of course summarises much of the problems standing in the way of achieving the goal of an absence of suffering. I do not here wish at all to propose a fully fleshed out plan as to solve these issues. I merely wish to raise the point that they can be solved, fairly easily, as long as people put aside their bureaucratic barriers. No easy feat, I know.

Well of course it can be done! Of course these problems can be solved! However, we must talk planning. We must understand the problem.

I think the problem is government. Government is force, and politics is the process of deciding who gets to use it on whom. This is not the best way to solve problems. Government is why we are on the brink of civilization. It's a disease that masquerades as its own cure. It's too big, complex, self-serving and violent. It wants us to be worn down until we are dependent and helpless. This is where we find ourselves today.

Let the people of the world govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people. Emancipate the world from the arbitrary rule of other men. Teach the world the Bill of Rights. Teach the world they have inalienable rights given by god. Give them the means to protect those rights.

We are on the brink of society because governments around the world are intrinsically at odds with the way human beings come to live satisfying lives.


[edit on 18-10-2008 by METACOMET]

I disagree with all those who say it is not the US' job to do this. And I strongly disagree with the comment that asked, why should the rich, dig the poor out of the gutter? Well, maybe because most of these rich people put them there in the first place.

It is not just the US' responsibility, but everyone's responsibility. People are just not getting it. The OP gave you an idea for you to take and run with. He's saying, with the amount of money the US alone has, they can really help make the planet a better place to live it, more so than they are doing now. Now, use your imagination...just imagine for a second, if all nations/countries/continents strived for this, what the outcome would be like? You think the US has money to help change the world on a large scale? Imagine how much money the rest of the planet has.

This is something I have been saying for a long time. The reason the planet is in the state it is in, is because of greed and lack of genuine love. People self destruct themselves...and if it continues to go this way(and I doubt it'll ever stop), we will kill ourselves...slowly, and very painfully.

If you cannot grasp and realize how important it is for everyone to help the other guy, you are a fool. A simple question; will the world be better off, or worst off if we were to really try(not just try for the camera), to help better it on a large scale? It's a yes or no question. Everything anybody does affects you. Some of you may get this, others may not. I'm not talking about karma or anything of the sort...I'm talking about relations.

You see, they say some things are out of your power. This is true...and this only applies to nature. Anything that we can choose...we create. Of course, you didn't choose to get robbed by some guy while you have a nice walk by the park, but he chose to rob you, didn't he? Let's take it a step further, just to give you an idea of how things are indeed related. Why did he rob you? For many reasons, he may be in desperate need and is trying to provide for his family...(Think America helping America, and hurting those others[which is you in the robber] in order to help itself). Or maybe, he owes another goon some serious money and is robbing you to prolong his life. Or, he's racist and he doesn't like the colour of your skin(whatever colour it is). Either way, he chose to rob you, and something made him do it. If the act he committed was aggravated by another act someone else committed...it is all related. You see where I'm going with this?

It is never a bad idea to help the world that we live in. A bad idea would be, to continue on the part we are heading now. Hey, we've tried what we've been doing for thousands of years...and guess what, it's not working. It's only helping a select few who have the power to make it so anyway. So, why not try something else that many have been preaching for thousands of years...but few have tried?

[edit on 18-10-2008 by sdrawkcabII]

Excellent thread OP. We can stop poverty today, if we wanted, we can stop pollution today, if we wanted. We can stop and solve any problem we have today if we wanted that.

We have the technology, the manpower, and the money although we do not need money to solve the problems we have.

Then, if we can solve them, why are these problem still around us?

Because at a very high political/economical/social level this is not desired. It is not in the interests of the few (world elite) to have people living in decent conditions. That would create many problems for them. Aka that would empower people and thus put at risk their supremacy.

Why are there wars? Because they are an excellent tool to keep people miserable and very useful to create waste. To throw money, good money that could solve poverty in 2 seconds, away so that there is not enough for health care, education, you name it. If there were no wars (aka peace), there would be too much cash available and prosperity.

Read the Iron Mountain report, made by USA government specialists in the 60'-70' who tried to see if a world of peace (no more wars) would be beneficial to the US. Their conclusion? NO, that would create a state of wellbeing that would affect US supremacy. War is necessary for a state to exists, no wars make sates useless.

Thus, the existence of the world elite is in danger if a state of perpetual peace is created. Peace=no need for states, politicians, authority. No more pyramid of power. Nothing, nada. Do the elite want that? NO.

The conclusion?

There will never be peace on Earth as long as the current paradigm persists. A change at the individual level must happen before we can enjoy a change at a macro level. Right now, even good people, willing to change this world, get into politics to do something about these problems, but when they get up there, these hidden (rich/powerful) faces emerge who corrupts them so that their initial good intentions are changed.

They are often offered large amounts of cash, etc. This makes former good politicians rich bastards and no more willing to think about others because they indulge themselves in their riches. Their former reasons vanish.

But in the end, this material world is an illusion, it is pointless to give it much value, what is important is your experience here, this will last forever. And many chose their life before they come to Earth, so it's not so much about being poor, but why you chose to be poor, or rich for that matter.

Still I think you need to have at least a decent life (food, water, shelter) to not make this experience very painful. But some chose it like that, you must not judge choices, but respect them as your own. We are all one in the end.

Here is a quotation that can solve all our problems:

"You can never solve a problem at the same level of consciousness on witch it was created."

- Albert Einstein

Growth is the secret. We will never stop war until we raise above it.

reply to post by camain


Most of what you say is right on, however, the US government is not charged with the responsibility to eliminate poverty in the USA. We have the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Our government does not owe us any guarantees of money, food, health care, jobs, etc. This is free market capitalism. You must do your best to make your own way and be given the opportunity to do so, as long as you are physically and mentally capable. This is not always fair, but that's life, and it's the fairest system on planet earth, or at least it has been--it's just about all over now.