It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Unity of the Species through Totalitarian Rule

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:53 PM
The way I see it, there is only one of two paths that can occur for our species to end up united in the common goal of spreading our species and surviving; these being the basic needs of any living organism in existence. As it stands now, our species is probably more divided than ever. As old divisions close up, new ones are created. This can be seen by the rampant partisanism in our country alone.

With the available land space quickly shrinking, resources dwindling, and no new places to explore and open up for our species to propagate; we are quickly becoming too numerous and wasteful for our planet to support our species. This leaves space exploration and settlement as a growing answer to our problems. Yet, due to our divisions and inherent greed and apathy we are clearly not doing enough to rectify this exponentially growing problem. We are relying on corporations to fund advancements to save our species, explore space, search for new resources, etc. Yet these companies show time and again their inability to look past their own noses at the bigger picture. And who can blame them? They have shareholders to answer to. How can you worry about 20 years down the road when the guy(s) funding you want to know how they can make money now? These people are human just like you and I.

This leads many to believe that for our species to truly advance to the next level of development; we have to come together as a whole, tear down the barriers and work together for the betterment of mankind. Put forth generations towards advancing and ensuring the survival of our race.

Now as I mentioned in my first paragraph, there are only two ways that this can be accomplished. Either mankind has some sort of epiphany and suddenly stops hating each other, or a small group of elites take control of the population and force their will through totalitarian means. Now looking logically, based on past human civilizations as well as today’s civilizations, which of these options do you think is more likely? I’m just going to go ahead and direct your mind towards the correct answer, the latter.

Now I know what you are thinking after reading that last paragraph. “Is this guy seriously about to defend totalitarianism?” Yes I know totalitarianism is despicable and puts people in awful living conditions, but look at what some of the past civilizations accomplished through totalitarian rule. Take the ancient Egyptians for one. If today, someone wanted to build a giant stone pyramid designed to weather the test of time, imagine the holes that he’d have to go through just to get off the ground.

Provided he didn’t have enough startup capital to begin with, he’d have to first pitch this plan to countless investors. All of which would want to know how this will benefit them. They would want to know how a pyramid that is going to take a few lifetimes to build is going to be a good investment. Now provided you found your capital, you need a place to build this grand wonder of the world. Bring out your red tape scissors, because now you will have to negotiate with many governments of differing sizes about where you can place this thing. Most likely you’ll have to pay property taxes on this thing. Next up is labor and equipment. With this you have to worry about maintenance costs, hiring people to maintain your equipment, salaries, etc. These things just touch the surface of how much of a headache building a pyramid would be in this day and age. We haven’t even touched on the feasibility of the actual project yet.

Now look back at the pharaohs of Egypt, while it is debatable if they used slave labor or not, the people most certainly listened when the pharaoh told his people to go out and build a giant pyramid in honor to the gods. They didn’t ask why this was necessary; they just accepted that their leader told them this was so. They didn’t have a choice in the matter, just go out and accomplish the task, and make sure they taught their children how to do what they were doing too.

Another good example of feats such as this is the Great Wall of China. The emperor of China decided one day that he’d like a giant wall to keep his neighbors out. Did he provide adequate wages, development updates to shareholders, decent equipment, or negotiate with local governments? Nope, he just went out and started building this thing that ended up being able to be one of the few manmade structures able to be seen from space. The workers who died during this vast process just became mortar for the wall.

This is what I was getting at, one person or a few leaders can give a large body of people direction and motivation, albeit at the end of a whip. They will skip over small things like living conditions, safety regulations, and general happiness all for the greater good. The greater good being the advancement of the species towards new frontiers. How great would it be if we could put several generations of people towards advancing space faring technology with no noticeable benefits until the project is complete several lifetimes down the road? So many people will lose their lives or be maimed in the process, but is your or my misfortune all that bad in the light of the bigger picture? Our children’s children may be able to explore the cosmos and even possibly escape from the clutches of the tyranny that has gripped the whole of human society.

Now I know that there are plenty of innovations throughout the span of human history that happened outside of dictatorship, however these innovations are usually performed by one or a few people and are accomplished in one lifetime. However, the logistics and barriers involved with being able to explore and see space with our own eyes suggests that unless humanity is blessed with a brilliant mind of unprecedented intelligence, wealth, and generosity (like Tony Stark from Ironman) we probably won’t scale these barriers in one lifetime. We will most likely need many minds and a great deal of manpower working together with the same end goal over several generations to achieve this leap into the vast unknown.

In conclusion, I didn’t write this thread to get you all outraged and thinking that I supported some NWO agenda to unite the world under totalitarian rule. I wrote this thread as a thought experiment (I just hope that many of you will get to this paragraph before hitting the reply button and angrily attacking me). At the end of the day I would prefer that humans get over their differences all on their own and start working together in harmony with their environment and towards the goal of eventually setting out into space. However, I view this outcome as highly unlikely leaving this following choice. Which is better in your mind: remaining a short-sighted divided society and our species dying a slow painful death as we use up the last of our resources and space to live, only to devolve into mindless fighting and self-destruction or total rule of a few over the whole of our population towards the betterment of the species? I mean who knows, maybe we can even achieve that elusive goal of unity through love that we all dream about once forced to drop all divisions and barriers.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:08 PM
When do you think a totalitarian regime would hand control back over to the people?

The answer is never. Ok so we all suffered but our children's children's children are flying the cosmos.

But most likely as slaves unless they uprise, but the regimes grip will probably be so tight and so defined, by that time it would be impossible to break.

Think of the ways TPTB keep us in check now, and think of what technologies they will have in the future to control us.

The day we let that happen will be the death of humanity.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:12 PM
As a thought experiment, I agree with your assessment as far as it goes. The first option, human development towards " love thy neighbor" is a long held answer, yet as you point out, this does not seem to be happening at a rate to take us on into some better way of life, other than on a small level. The other option of totalitarian rule does have offerings of hope for conservatives and liberals alike. However, I see little if any reason to hope that those "in power" could have the interests of the rest of us at heart.

Now it may be that as they rise and continue to secure their own advancement, the elite will allow the rest of us to develop into a kind of peaceful world society were we can all get along and live happily. I just don't have any reason to believe this.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by DAZ21

This may be the case, but if it doesn't happen we are dooming ourselves anyways. One can only hope that with the vastness of space that groups of people dissatisfied with the rule of their leaders would be able to splinter away from the despotic rule just like colonials did when getting away from England in the 16 and 1700's. Not to mention just because the current rulers may be overtly criminal or despotic, doesn't mean that humanity won't end up with a ruler with compassion for the little guy. It's not like it hasn't occurred before in these types of governments.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

As it stands now, our species is probably more divided than ever.

I would argue that there are less divisions now than ever before. International travel for leisure as never been cheaper and more affordable to all economic classes. A person of modest means can board a flight and be in any number of countries and interact with almost any culture on the planet.

Translators on smart phones, the internet, cell phones, humans are interacting, and are more aware of each other more than ever before. This wasn't the case 50 100 500 years ago.

Yes I know totalitarianism is despicable and puts people in awful living conditions, but look at what some of the past civilizations accomplished through totalitarian rule.

The accomplishments were achieved through slavery, abuse, murder, and torture. Are you advocating the "elites" utilize those activities with their absolute rule as well?

The greater good being the advancement of the species towards new frontiers. How great would it be if we could put several generations of people towards advancing space faring technology with no noticeable benefits until the project is complete several lifetimes down the road? So many people will lose their lives or be maimed in the process, but is your or my misfortune all that bad in the light of the bigger picture?

Quite frankly no posting or statement I have read on ATS has been as disgusting as that. I have disagreements on the forums with opposite thinking members on a variety of subjects, but you either do not fully understand what you are advocating or you really are that repugnant. I really do not care which it is, either way it is ideology like this that brings tyrants to power.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by TerryMcGuire

Well if the leaders were short-sighted enough to not attempt space exploration then yes you'd be correct. These leaders would have to resort to more and more extreme methods against the general populace to maintain their rule as resources dwindle lower and lower. However, if these rulers recognized the plight and risk to their rule and attempted things such as mining asteroids, then maybe things could be different. One never knows.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

what you are proposing only exists when we are divided as a people. under the ego's influence. so you are suggesting that we address the true source of the problem (which is us being divided) with that which not only only exists when we are divided but is only going to create more and more of the same of that which is the result of us being divided? restriction. destruction. of our ourselves. of our world?

the form of power that is associated with this is about to no longer be supported on this planet. what is going to replace it is the true meaning of the word unity. oneness. the true solution to the problem. not more of that which is a result of us being divided but that which is causing us to be exactly the way you are describing us to be. this means the idea of having power over others is not going to be supported from a matrix standpoint. when we are free from the ego we are free from wanting to have power over others. cause we are in conscious control of ourselves.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

Trust me I know where you're coming from, things would get done. But for the better or worse?

Who's to say that the totalitarian regime wouldn't get so power hungry and manipulative that they realize It's cheaper and more profitable for them to get the proles to build spaceships for them and leave us here to die, or even just live like gods on earth without a care as to the future of humanity, the earth comes to its end, but at least they had a good ride at our expense...

There's just to many possible variables as to what would happen if we surrendered ourselves to such a regime.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:22 PM
Well, talk about one to sit and think a moment on. I did read your whole OP and encourage everyone else to before replying, if a reply is coming. It's not how it might seem to start. Good one, no doubt!

I would add a third choice to your list but its the least likely. That would be the true and intended system of Government our Constitution outlines. I say least likely because it does require the "body politic" be the business of every citizen in a nation where ignorant 'man on the street' interviews would draw the scorn, not laughter of passers-by.

Going by your two tho? Wow... I can see the benefits of totalitarianism, and particularly if it were an interim means to the above 3rd choice. As a system all it's own? Well, given what our system is devolving into? I'm not sure which is worse.

Totalitarianism could work though....with one giant problem. What kind of man or men does it take to not just want but to seize such power? Are they men we'd even want, let alone ever be able to trust ...and what of the outcome if they ranged from blithering idiots to evil masterminds? At least our system now, however dysfunctional, is too decentralized to go bad all at once?

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by Carreau

Just because we are closer than ever does not mean we aren't divided. Divisions do not have to exist between countries. Divisions exist between race, between political affiliation, between heritage, between language spoken, between region of the country you are from, and these are just a few that one can name. Not to mention these countries that you say one can be in at any time all still exist. So yes, even though we can go between these countries easier than ever, these borders all still exist and the people of France don't consider themselves the same as the people of England. Likewise the people from Europe call themselves European, not Asian. All these names are just titles for the many divisions that exist in our society.

I am saddened that the intention of my thread was lost on you and you decided to attack my character over this. I understand the human atrocities that have occurred under despotic governments. They are truly a shame to the lengths that humans will go to, to put down their fellow people. However, when looking at the accomplishments of the civilizations as a whole, one sees a general likemindedness towards progressing their civilization.

Please understand I am not advocating the many disgusting things these governments have done to subjugate the people, I am just trying to put forth a small thought experiment asking which is better for the human race: advancement into the vastness of space through subjugation or a slow death through starvation of resources? Because really these are our only two options.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

These are good questions to ponder. One never knows what they will get with the rule of the few over the many. For all we know we could get a few generations of rulers screwing around with the populace making everyone more miserable and worse off so they can live nicer and nicer. However one thing always remains constant, people in power always fear to lose that power. Eventually, the very real concern of dwindling resources is going to crop up. Now the ruler of the day could use mass extermination to reduce the strain on the resources, but resources tend not to replenish themselves very quickly so that will only slow down the problem. Eventually, these rulers in their fear to maintain their power will have to seek out new sources of resources and this will eventually mean they will have to look up. It is really just a process of elimination.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

Unfortunately, totalitarianism is on its way. Humanity, on average, is just plain too stupid, too spiritually primitive, and too tainted with hard coded greed and violence for there to be any other alternative than a global totalitarian system at this point. The population is too numerous with no checks being applied to limit its growth, land mass and resources too finite for indefinite expansion, and technology too far advanced and in the hands of the wrong people for there to be any alternative.

Essentially, humanity was doomed from the beginning. While there are always those who buck their programming, and take control of themselves and transcend their primitive natures, and in the process become great people, such a feat is beyond the vast majority of people. Most people are, well, just stupid monkeys who think they are really super smart because they can push some buttons on the latest electronic trinket they bought because it was shiny and smooth and hyped up.

Chances are most people on this site and others are not part of the herd comprised of those above, at least not willingly. But lets face it, the people on this site and similar sites account for a very, very small percentage of the population. Those who have not awoken by this point, are not going to awaken any time soon.

Humanity is on the verge of entering a new dark age. Many of us will be dead before it truly fully manifests; but those being born right now, and perhaps those under 10 or so, are in for taking the full brunt of whats to come.

Sorry for being gloomy, but I see no hope left for humanity, save for some long shot event that allows humanity yet another chance to start again, like a super disease or comet. I think its a pretty much done deal at this point, though. A high tech, totalitarian, brightly lit global dark age is inevitable.

Most of those reading this, thanks for at least trying by telling others, protesting, etc

edit on 7/31/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: grammar

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

Hello Krazysh0t. Very nice progression of reasoning and rationalization. If it were as simple and plain as the op, then the totalitarian unification of mankind would appear less an 'evil'.

Put into the equation that there is an outstanding volume of data and information proving the mechanization of our artificially conditioned and engineered culture, society, and opinions. Propaganda campaigns throughout media outlets, brought on by movies, literature, music, television, news, and celebrity trends. Dietary agendas and pharmaceuticals to lull the people into lethargy. Neuro, psychological, behavioral, physiological, and emotional manipulation. Any point of division, fragmentation, and difference amongst mankind is stimulated.

We are conditioned and engineered counter to self-empowerment, self-reliancy, love, unity, and compassion by those who seek totalitarian rule. In order to fix anything at all, it takes the individual to better their own inner and outer worlds.


edit on 7/31/13 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

You know, to consider your reply and OP carefully here, something comes to mind that I hadn't thought of in a long time. If Terrans are ever to reach space, as you note there, in a way that means something, far beyond the point where anyone even bothers to think in terms of 'missions' for each launch? Single world rule is almost necessary by definition. We can't move as a species while we're bickering and warring as 200+ subsets in political border alone.

I just don't know that we have anyone even among the living, let alone in line to see power who could ever handle that much power, let alone do good with it. Still, Going upward and outward will take iron will because, as we've barely glimpsed, the body count in progress will be high as the losses come in horrific ways. Space is a totally unforgiving environment, after all. As the movie said, there will be blood ...and that's a hard to near impossible sell among the warm and fuzzy industrialized nations today. Public's want happy endings more than progress....

So..Perhaps in my kid's lifetime or his child's lifetime, what you propose will be the only avenue forward come a certain point.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Sahabi

Yes, this is what I was getting at. Humans just don't have the desire to advance themselves or work together towards bettering the species. It is always about me me me. It doesn't become an issue until the problem is slapping them in the face. Then they the person looks around helplessly as no one else cares about their plight. When people have this attitude towards the small things, we must recognize that they won't care about the larger things affecting us.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Yes, it was this line of reasoning that got me pondering this situation and led me to post it here on ATS to see what some of the better posters thought about this situation. When it comes down to it, every parent wants to see their children live better and happier lives than they themselves lived. Well at the current way things are going, this is looking to no longer be the case and it is starting with my generation. I imagine as we get further removed generation wise and following the trends of our society, each successive generation may be looking at living in worse and worse conditions. All so we can squeeze more and more people onto this rock. Eventually, we'll either run out of space or resources to maintain our way of life. It is inevitable. No one wants to talk about it, but it is true. And worse, nothing is being done about (that can be noteworthy).

The reason starts with our divisions, we have divisions for everything. We need to stop calling ourselves American, English, White, Black, Christian, Muslim, Asian, African, etc. And whats worse these divisions have sub-divisions. Hence we have Hispanic-Americans which aren't the same as Mexican-Americans which aren't the same as Spanish-Americans yet they all speak the same language. These names are holding our species back from truly uniting together to progress as one.

So as we get further divided and more names are created (Conspiracy Theorist, Republican, Redneck, etc) I see no end in sight. This leaves unity through force. Force the divisions to cease and bring everyone together as one. It is such a sad fate, but may be the only one that can save our species from annihilation.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

As has been pointed out, an excellent thread.

As we're in the thought experiment mode, allow me to let my mind (such as it is) to roam freely and say things I might not otherwise say in polite society. I was struck by the very beginning of your post.

The way I see it, there is only one of two paths that can occur for our species to end up united in the common goal of spreading our species and surviving; these being the basic needs of any living organism in existence.

Is spreading our species and surviving really our common goal? I don't mean that there are some nuts preaching mass destruction, I mean is that our highest and best goal?

Consider soldiers who throw themselves on grenades to protect others. They are not concerned with species survival, they want to protect their friends. Or the poor swimmer who jumps into a lake to save a drowning child, even though they both drown. Or Nathan Hale, who regretted he had only one life to give for his country. Or any winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Or the Revolutionary War soldiers who died for freedom from Great Britain. Or the Mayflower pilgrims who risked death for freedom. Or the state motto "Live Free or Die." Or the early Christian martyrs who refused to renounce their faith when death was the alternative.

All of these, and many more, are declared heroic and models for us to emulate. None of them were concerned about survival as a species.

So the question should be asked, why (outside of the blind biological urge) should survival of the species be seen as our great goal? Should we sacrifice everything else to ensure that there are human beings wandering about in 5,000 years? Certainly the species will die out. The two certainities are the Heat Death of the Universe, and taxes.

An unrelated question prompted by Buckaroo Bonzai and His Adventures Across the 8th Dimension, "No matter where you go, there you are." When we send millions of colonists to the stars, will they not carry their hatreds and prejudices with them? Do we really want to spread war throughout the Universe?

And if you say that by then, all hatred, corruption, and disunity will be eliminated by command of the World King, I would be extremely doubtful. Egypt and China both engaged in wars after they built their marvels. A huge project didn't cleanse their hearts. I don't see why this marvel would cleanse the hearts of the world. Not every nation will be involved in constructing the new Space Program, though all may be taxed for it. Few scientists from Somalia will help create the design. Why should they not see it as a rich man's project to protect the 1%ers at the expense of everybody else?

As I said, just some impolitic thoughts to add to your thought experiment laboratory.

With respect,

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by charles1952

First off, you bring up some great points that I hadn't considered yet. The people you mention who sacrifice themselves for others shows the irrationality of our species that can truly show how great and noble we can be at times. It is a testament that we must strive towards. But can a sacrifice towards pushing our species into space be seen as the same thing? Each of your examples demonstrates a sacrifice so that others can survive. So in effect, one can sacrifice his life so that his children can survive.

You bring up an excellent point about war. You are entirely correct that our unified species will not just abandon war. As a species we are addicted to war even more so than money. Luckily, we know of no other intelligent species in our universe (provided that they currently aren't visiting and communicating with our governments in secret) to wage war against. What's more likely is that once we achieve advancement into the cosmos eventually enough humans will be able to make their way far enough out of reach of the despotic government and divide up again. The reason I believe this is because right now, our race is constrained by borders. The borders being that we cannot leave and live away from our planet. But the universe is vast, VERY vast. So vast that given enough space it would be impossible for a totalitarian government to maintain control unless they had access to technology that I cannot dream of.

This inevitable reseperation of the human race will give our race someone to wage war against, at least until we find another intelligent lifeform out there. Unfortunately, unless we achieve space travel through mutual unity, I doubt that we wouldn't wage war against any other races in the cosmos.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:32 PM
Well with 6 S and 6 F and counting it seems I'm the odd man out and this is a good idea that should be explored. After all this is "thought experiment" and no one in this thread should be criticized for just "exploring the potential". So I take back my earlier post and will engage in this intellectual masturbation.

I think everything can be accomplished in the OP without the entire world being enslaved. With say 12% of the population of North American as a "State Work Force" all the menial Labor could be done at no wages paid. This would reduce cost of goods and services and be an economic boom to industry and agriculture. This would be the catalyst to spur invention, improvement, and innovation. Cheaper food, goods, and services for the rest of the world. There is no telling what the Human Race could achieve.

Of course selective breeding of "State Work Force" will result in a more physically impressive offspring over the many generations resulting in a race with a higher than average ability in running, jumping, ect (an added bonus for spectator sport fans).

Now some might say this is unfair to this 12% of the population but after all it is for the "Greater Good" and really that is all that really matters. The Human Race as a whole would benefit from this type of situation. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet right?

We would probably only have to do this for a couple of hundred years and then we can let the "State Work Force" go back to a free existence. There shouldn't be any repercussions and everyone will reap the rewards of the new society built on the backs of the 12%.

After careful consideration I say, Yes let's do this. I'm all for it as I know the "intellectuals" in this thread have expressed it is a very tempting proposition to them as well. Unless of course you happen to be one of the 12%............heh sucks to be them.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by Carreau

Exactly, how do you choose the 12%?

Selection from birth? The homeless?

What provisions and enforcements would you have to get them to do your bidding? Not everyone can be manipulated and controlled so easily.

Basically, even if you enjoy playing with this idea It's simply not plausible, there are to many variables to take into consideration.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in