Post Reply
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View WORLD PEACE.........a reasonable objective for mankind?
5 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2010 - 3:44AM #41
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 12,767
`Peace' is a code. `Peace to believers' means `slaughter unbelievers'! {Sigh}
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2010 - 6:09PM #42
IDBC
Posts: 4,569

Howdy oddjoe


Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:16PM, oddjoe wrote:


 


 


Dec 6, 2009 -- 2:39PM, KindredSai wrote:



I would be like finding a drug that could cure all diseases. 




The population of the world would reach unstainable numbers.


In which case overpopulation would stifle resources and contribute towards war which would then lead to a population decrease. Things have a natural way of balancing out.




Resources are already running short.



Human Beings are a very intelligent species.   It is our intelligence that has made us the top of the food chain and  the foremost predator on the planet much at the expense of other species.  I still claim natural way of balancing out has been death, wether from war or from disease. 


You claim that "Things have a natural way of balancing out."   Perhaps you can explain how?



I don't want things to balance out with humans.  I want humans to be able to have the upper hand over nature.



Human beings do have an upper hand over nature.  I think that they have to some degree abused that "upper hand". 


And you have not explained how "Things have a natural way of balancing out." 


 


 


Dec 6, 2009 -- 7:07PM, oddjoe wrote:

  I hope that attitude toward war is pure cynicism.  War is way too barbaric to treat as a natural remedy to resign to.


I will not deny that war is barbaric.  I still claim that he has helped control population.


Wether it is either  "natural"  or a "remedy"   is debatable.



You admitted that violence is "natural" to human beings.  War is violence writ large. 


If you have an alternative "remedy" I would like to hear what is the "remedy". 


 


 


Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:16PM, oddjoe wrote:


Humans have a natural tendency toward violence.  I hope they can conquer that bad trait, especially by making it useless.



Humans have a natural tendency towards violence AND towards compassion.




Humans have a natural tendency towards violence AND towards compassion.


Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:16PM, oddjoe wrote:

As far as remedy, it is kind of like poisoning cancer, but also in the process greatly injuring the good cells.  It's bad if you ask me.  /quote]

But if you do not kill the cancerous cells the cancerous cells will eventually kill you. 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2010 - 7:06PM #43
rangerken
Posts: 16,408

There is a poster in my son's unit headquarters. It says 'peace through superior firepower'.


Works for me!


Ken

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 10, 2010 - 4:06AM #44
oddjoe
Posts: 811

Hello IDBC


Did I say things have a natural way of balancing out, or was it someone else?  The post nesting had gotten off kilter.


With the cancer treatment, the patient might decide that the misery from the treatment might be worse than the suffering from the disease.


If we don't want to have an upper hand over nature, would we be happier with a simple hunter-gather life?  I think that would be pretty regressive.  Being intelligent should remove us as far as possible from a subsistence lifestyle. 


 

Nonself-defensive competition against others (fighting against others) is the root of human evil.
Let's try to overcome humanity's drive to reproduce on this finite planet.
Anarchism + perfect understanding and compassion within the citizenry = utopian socialism.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 10, 2010 - 4:39PM #45
IDBC
Posts: 4,569

Howdy oddjoe


Mar 10, 2010 -- 4:06AM, oddjoe wrote:


 


Did I say things have a natural way of balancing out, or was it someone else?  The post nesting had gotten off kilter.


 


If you didn't say it then I apologize.    I have been know to make mistakes. 


Mar 10, 2010 -- 4:06AM, oddjoe wrote:

With the cancer treatment, the patient might decide that the misery from the treatment might be worse than the suffering from the disease.



I would agree that sometimes the cure might be worse than the disease.  If the patient wishes to forgo treatment then that is their decision.  However if they want to suffer the treatment in order to be cured that is also ok. 


Now millions of people die each year from a wide variety of cancers.  If a cure for all these cancers were discovered and people no longer died from cancer then not only they were still alive but they would have children, and their children would have children.  The impact on the enviorment would be increased.


Mar 10, 2010 -- 4:06AM, oddjoe wrote:

If we don't want to have an upper hand over nature, would we be happier with a simple hunter-gather life?  I think that would be pretty regressive. 


 


I think some people might be happier with a hunter-gatherer life, but I don't think I would be happier. 


I am for having the "upper hand" but it shouldn't be a "heavy hand".  


Mar 10, 2010 -- 4:06AM, oddjoe wrote:

 Being intelligent should remove us as far as possible from a subsistence lifestyle. 


 


I would certainly not be in favor of a subsistence lifestyle, however it would be intelligent to use moderation.  


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide Us Smile

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 3:46AM #46
oddjoe
Posts: 811

Thanks IDBC


Since the destruction of the planet is happening faster than technology can save it, I think the world needs a really radical change in governance to promote a steep population attrition.   World peace is very unlikely while there is so much economic inequality.  One idea might be to have a global per capita income established based on the total fixed resources.  Then, when someone brings a new human into the world, he/she still has only that original income, then for two people instead of one, and so on through future generations.  The subsequent members of the family line each gets only an equal share of its pie.  A last member of a family line chooses where his/her share will go after its end. 

Nonself-defensive competition against others (fighting against others) is the root of human evil.
Let's try to overcome humanity's drive to reproduce on this finite planet.
Anarchism + perfect understanding and compassion within the citizenry = utopian socialism.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2010 - 7:33PM #47
IDBC
Posts: 4,569

Howdy oddjoe


Mar 11, 2010 -- 3:46AM, oddjoe wrote:


Thanks IDBC


Since the destruction of the planet is happening faster than technology can save it, I think the world needs a really radical change in governance to promote a steep population attrition. 



And the reason that the destruction of the planet is happening faster than technology can save it is because mankind by virtue of its intelligence has the upperhyand. 


 


Mar 11, 2010 -- 3:46AM, oddjoe wrote:

  World peace is very unlikely while there is so much economic inequality.



There will always be economic inequality.


 


Mar 11, 2010 -- 3:46AM, oddjoe wrote:

  One idea might be to have a global per capita income established based on the total fixed resources.  Then, when someone brings a new human into the world, he/she still has only that original income, then for two people instead of one, and so on through future generations.   The subsequent members of the family line each gets only an equal share of its pie.  A last member of a family line chooses where his/her share will go after its end. 



And if they have a set income and they have more children then that income will have to spread around the additional children.  So if for example the "set income" is determined to be $100.00 a week and one family has one child and the other family has six, then the family with six children are going to be poorer than the family with one.


 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 16, 2010 - 4:03AM #48
oddjoe
Posts: 811

Hi IDBC


Having the upper hand over nature isn't destructive per say.  If we were to use our intelligence better, we could manage our use of the global biosphere very sustainably.


Though it appears likely that humans will never learn to share enough to eliminate economic inequality, I think it is dogmatic to say we can't become socially advanced enough to do it.


Until reproduction can be removed as an individual's task and transfered to world society as a whole, one way to reduce the population would be to make it financially unattractive to the individual to have reproductive offspring.

Nonself-defensive competition against others (fighting against others) is the root of human evil.
Let's try to overcome humanity's drive to reproduce on this finite planet.
Anarchism + perfect understanding and compassion within the citizenry = utopian socialism.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2010 - 12:23PM #49
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Jan 31, 2010 -- 4:03PM, theinterpreter wrote:


First we will go through the Battle of Ar Mageddon, then there will be peace for a thousand years.




And then what? Prepare for the next Armageddon?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2010 - 1:37PM #50
IDBC
Posts: 4,569

Howdy oddjoe


Mar 16, 2010 -- 4:03AM, oddjoe wrote:


Hi IDBC


Having the upper hand over nature isn't destructive per say.  If we were to use our intelligence better, we could manage our use of the global biosphere very sustainably.



If we do use our intellgence better and if we do manage to manage global resources better than I would be a happy world citizen. 


 


Mar 16, 2010 -- 4:03AM, oddjoe wrote:


Though it appears likely that humans will never learn to share enough to eliminate economic inequality, I think it is dogmatic to say we can't become socially advanced enough to do it.



I agree.  I would not say that we can't, but I would say that it is unlikely.   I cannot imagine how overcoming or eliminating economic inequality could occur without causing more problems than the problem itself.


It certainly sounds like a noble ideal.   


 


Mar 16, 2010 -- 4:03AM, oddjoe wrote:

Until reproduction can be removed as an individual's task and transfered to world society as a whole, one way to reduce the population would be to make it financially unattractive to the individual to have reproductive offspring.



So what you seem to be advocating is to take the decision of how many children a family may have out of their hands and to transfer the task to a "world society as a whole"  like the UN?


In Communist China there is a law that takes the task of reproduction out of the hands of the husband and wife and transfers that responsibitly to the "national society as a whole". 


Couples are by the law of the "national scociety" restricted to have only one child per couple.  If a couple already has one child and the woman is pregnant she may be FORCED to have an abortion. 


Do you think such a law should be imposed on "the world society as a whole"? 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide Us Smile

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook