Am I The Only One Who Agrees With The Georgia Guide Stones?

page: 15
24
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Thanks for your links
Had a quick check - think I have seem some before - will look at more later
Busy time now what with Spring knocking on the door
Seedlings to tend etc - All good stuff and very grounding
Nature is so generous and expansive
Thanks again




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I think in general it has some wisdom to it, and it makes sense. Its just that in order to get humanity to live by it would be almost impossible without some massive shift in peoples beliefs, personalities, and understanding.


1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

- Whoever made the stones clearly knew that the world population before the industrial boom and baby booms was 500 million. They probably saw that the industrial revolution sparked a massive population increase beyond the normal slow progression that humanity was experiencing. The population growth was linear before the booms, it increased at a slow rate.

If there were no baby booms I think we were supposed to be at a population of 1 billion by now if it continued to follow that linear pattern.

The main issue here is not that people dont think a more manageable population number is wrong, its that they dont want to feel like they are being culled like livestock, to which I agree ... no one has the authority or right to do it, and in fact it would go against all the rules stated below. But at the same time anyone who has dealt with people first hand know that there are great people, and then there are complete a-holes that dont give a rats ass about anyone or anything .... its these a-holes that ruin the world for the rest of humanity and everything on Earth.


2. Guide reproduction wisely -- improving fitness and diversity.

- This one makes sense too. If I had some serious condition thats passed down I personally wouldnt want to bring biological offspring into the world to suffer with it, especially since no one cares to actually cure anything any more. I'd opt to adopt instead.

But the question is where do you draw the line? Whats bad or good? And who decides whats good or bad? Especially since there are many with serious medical/genetic conditions that brought great insight into humanities understanding of ourselves ... so should we even stop them from existing, especially since they may provide answers that we need to know. They may bring miracle knowledge to humanity.

But if its something say an a-hole couple who has a ton of kids, and those kids all turn out to be a-holes ... then yeah, maybe they shouldnt have had kids. Especially if they dont care about them or abuse them. Its sad that there are many parents that are terrible parents and have only ruined lives of their children ... I know many people like that. So in that sense I agree with it.


3. Unite humanity with a living new language.

- There is no need for this one I think. Everyone knows one common language (at least in some point in their lives) and its called happiness and joy.


5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

- If people were allowed to be free of heart and mind, then there would be no need for laws and courts. Happiness and joy brings sanity to people, therefore they will not need laws or courts because they will naturally do the right thing. Sadness/despair/hopelessness/depression breeds the actions that require laws and courts.


6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

- Courts are for the large part, useless. How about instead of a world court you let the citizens of the two disputing nations have an open dialogue, air out their issues, and try to resolve them with whats in the best interest of both nations.


7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

- See #5.

8. Balance personal rights with social duties.

Social duties? Nope, they cannot enforce social duties because there are none. The only duties people should have are to themselves and their family. If they focused solely on those two aspects it would be enough to fix a lot of the issues humanity faces. A person is not responsible for a stranger, at most they can only fix themselves. If a person tries to help someone who doesnt want their help then it is a useless and futile battle that cannot be won.

It could be used in a negative way though, such as duty to your government. Almost like an implied slavery type of rule. Ex: its your duty to do as a official commands you to do.


9. Prize truth -- beauty -- love -- seeking harmony with the infinite.

- I see no problem with this one.


10. Be not a cancer on the earth -- Leave room for nature -- Leave room for nature.

- This one is doable right now, if humanity as a whole really wanted to do it. But most dont care to because they have more important things to worry about.



The overall problem with these rules is that humanity always abuses rules and power. Instead of using it for the good of the whole, they use it for bad purposes. No matter what great rule or laws are conceived they will always be twisted into being something they were never meant to be. Until humanity fixes this flaw, there will never be a perfect world that everyone wants to be i



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
If I agree, do my family and I get to survive?
the whole, population under the certain number thing seems un-reachable. sure, we may be able to achieve it initially, but people will reproduce more and more..
which could possibly be the purpose behind it... drastically cut the population, let them reproduce, start over... hmmm...





new topics
 
24
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join