It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We need compassion not money?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
www.news.com.au...

The Dalai Lama today addressed thousands of followers in Melbourne Australia. His message was basic. He said we need to become more compassionate to decrease the number of suicides and to change the world for the better.

This message is not new. We have heard this message from various religious groups for many years but it did get me thinking of the ramifications of this change in humanity should the world take on this advice. If the human race were to become more compassionate, below are some of the possible consequences:

Homosexuality would not be an issue ever again. People would accept others sexuality and there would be no discrimination.

Feminism would work wonderfully well without the nazi end ruining it for the rest of us (I am a feminist). Men and women would have empathy for each other and things would truly be equal (except where biologically impossible) without the bickering and carry on between men and women now.
Women and men would both be free. There would be acrimonious divorces and fair custody arrangements. Alimony would be given freely where men and women thought it necessary given their individual circumstances (I don’t agree with Alimony in principle though I see why it is sometimes the lesser of two evils).

Men and women would be in better sexual relationships. There would be no using of each other or using sex as a weapon. There would be no rape of either sex.
Women would have ultimate say over their own reproductive health, as would men.

Children would not be molested or abused in any way. Underage children would not be targets of sexual abuse because compassionate individuals would not wish to cause harm to a child for their own gratification. These children would be well adjusted and compassionate by nature too.

Families for the most part would stick together and be happier. Those families that break down would also be happier as each member of the family would be treated with more empathy.

These changes would ultimately reduce suicides as there would be much less stress and depression where everyone is treated well.

Big pharma would put people’s best interests first before profit. Medication would cost much less and the medications produced would be cures rater than symptom management. This sounds wonderful in theory however this would quickly be followed by mass pay cuts or lay-offs due to less profit. Perhaps the companies would attempt to retain all it’s staff and go broke.

Businesses would share profits with all it employees more equally. While this sounds wonderful too, it would also result in massive economic problems. Money would eventually become meaningless if everyone was paid more equal salaries and more businesses would fold.

The necessities in life would be free, free housing, free water and food, free electricity and free fuel. If they could not be free due to cost of provision then they would cost very little. This would cause the collapse of the system as people wouldn’t be beholden to the powers that be for survival.

People wouldn’t starve as a general rule. This it seems is the biggest problem that humanity would face. How would we keep a sustainable population in a compassionate world? The people that are currently crippled by starvation and disease would reproduce when they are no longer subject to these horrible circumstances, as would the rest of the world.

To be compassionate, would we move to restrict people’s reproductive rights for the greater good? I believe we’d have to.

The other thing I thought that was intriguing is how we would deal with people who have the urge to harm others, serial killers etc. Surely there are some that are just born with a disorder that compels them to violence and other socially disruptive acts.
There would be some people who seem incapable of compassion for whatever reason. Would we as a compassionate society imprison them or kill them? What would be better for us and for the individual?

What do we all think?




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Bee2010
 


Mark my words, a moment in time ahead is rapidly approaching, where the poor in society, with nothing left to loose, will mercilessly slaughter and eat the rich.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by johncarter
 


After they have mercilessly slaughtered and eaten the weaker amongst them first.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by johncarter
reply to post by Bee2010
 


Mark my words, a moment in time ahead is rapidly approaching, where the poor in society, with nothing left to loose, will mercilessly slaughter and eat the rich.


There have always been revolutions. I don't know about eating the rich but I believe some people are already at the point where they will begin to take action to take back their power.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   


We need compassion not money?


Unfortunately compassion does not pay the bills. Here in America if you do not want to live homeless, you need the green. I am a little too proud to make my children sleep in a boxcar. Thats just me though.

We do go camping though.
They like the tent.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The Dalai Lamal has used his slogans about compassion so often, it has turned into a cliché. I’m yet to hear something more profound by his holiness.

The same Dalai Lama has signed up to sit in the jury of some master chef show on television. This announcement has been used as colourful advertisement to sell the news paper. Sorry can’t provide the link to this, it was in my local news paper.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join