i had a bit of a philosophical conversation with my sister. it began with her using a word i dont care much for, and ended with her calling me a feminist, like its a dirty word. well, actually it ended her telling me that with all the ignorant, racist, sexist, and all that junk kind of people in the world, nothing will ever be changed for the better. that astonished me. i try to be involved, i try to be an activist. my sister is intelligent. shes like me, in that if she really tried she could do anything, i think. i am amazed to find out that she thinks we cant fix things, even though i consider her intelligent.

so what do you guys think? if we worked hard enough, could improve the state of the planet? if all the apathetic people put their mind to fixing something, would that something be improved? do the apathetic masses have a worse affect on the state of planet than "the ignorant, racist, sexist, and all that junk" kind of people?

nope. earth has waaaay too many different societies for everyone to agree on what is "right" or "better". No matter how many people tried, or how hard they tried, they wouldn't be able to "fix" anything because they wouldn't be able to agree best how to.

I agree, as long as there are 2 people on the earth, there will be disagreements. Doesn't mean we shouldnt try though..

I don't think it's possible at this point. People are generally too shallow, self righteous and self absorbed to worry about the Greater Good, or the Big Picture, or whatever you'd like to call it.
Why do we need so many rules and regulations preventing people from abusing/using/raping/killing/enslaving/etc. other people for their own benefit? We do because we're not as civilized and advanced as we'd like to think, and we just repeat history over and over, only with better, faster, more efficient ways of killing each other. We're not on the verge of some mind blowing, transcendental epiphany any more than we were when we first started walking on two legs.

OTOH, think about how bad it could be if no one at all cared...

It wouldn't be as hard as everyone likes to make out. You just need to give up any of the patently absurd notions that make such improvement untenable. Things like individual rights and privacy and what have you. The best path is a difficult one to walk, of course, but you begin by subverting all of the processes that would slow down your work.

Democracy has to be the first thing to go - the second thing, if you're starting in America. Can't be forced on to a timetable. Then you need to withdraw all of your outward facing resources and turn them inwards. You need to be seen doing this as well - building up the infrastructure is important. You also need to keep this infrastructure running at a profit and under the control of the government.

Then, in the name of stopping crimes, you start to strip away the troublesome privileges that people have. You start with the easiest step - surveillance in the homes of convicted sex offenders. Then you have to work that back until you've taken privacy away from everybody - after all, surveillance on somebody isn't a problem when it's on everybody. You need to have a tight control of all the mass transit systems and these need to be numerous and prompt. The more people relying on the efficient government, the better you're inured against the first set of revolutionaries.

You also need to be ultimately behind the first set of revolutionaries. You need to have them be dangerous and unstable to taint the concept of rebellion with indiscriminate murders. If you do this and have a good grasp on the curriculum being taught in schools, you're well on your way to making a better world.

But of course, who plans this out in detail when they have nothing better to do, right?

I think it is possible to make a difference in this world, but only one that will make more people unhappy. After all, "Everyone's happiest when no one's happy.

The problem is that everybody wants to hang on to things like democracy and freedoms. The reality is that these things make it nearly impossible to improve on just about any "problems" you could name. This is why people can't see a way of improving the world.

You have to abandon one to have the other.

Yeah, I think I'm happier with the problems.

Hey, if that's your choice.

It's just annoying to hear people whine that they can't get both who don't accept that they're nearly mutually exclusive.

However, if one replaces a democracy with a Facist state, how does one know that whoever is in charge will take up the task of educating the Proletariat?

Actually other than some basic math, a little (retconned) history, the basics of language, and some vocational training, the proletariat wouldn't need education. Just have those that show promise and intelligence receive advanced education. A fascist state would want to keep the working class as ignorant as possible.

Brilliant! Proles are trained relative to intellectual capacity. Therefore, no services are unnecessarily wasted.

That's the basic gist of it.

After all, I think the Internet generations are proof positive that access to education and information doesn't improve society.

Wow, I can't believe that I would ever have to ask this question, but does anybody else realize that this progression of thought eerily reminiscent of 1984? the creation of a fascist state that is in possession of such power over its people can only lead to the proliferation of even more ignorance and continual hatred, instead of destroying the continuing cycles of history you simply substitute it for another which is controlled by the government.

We have already begun to discover the powers of such psychological tools as Doublethink and Crimestop, as well as the full extent to which any one person can withstand physical and psychological torture, and you say that the only solution is to hand full control to the government and reduce the education of the proles to the absolutely necessary minimum level... this is simply a progression into the hellish world of Ingsoc.

When any individual, or group of individuals, acquires certain powers over other men, they will always abuse it to the level where they do not stand the risk of loosing the power, until they inevitably desire more and finally assume the risk of loosing it all. the world has seen this too may times to count, one of the most recent examples being the Central Bank, but the proposed solution (returning to the gold standard) doesn't solve anything, because you simply turn the tyranny of few into the tyranny of the majority.

Choice by majority and choice by a select few seem to both lead down into chaos or tyranny, so finding consensus seems to be the only possible choice, but the reality is that we are all to self-centered and convinced of our own perfection that trying to find even one person you can meet halfway has become a near impossibility...

That being said, people are trying to change everything (hopefully for the better) and I personally believe that it is possible to improve the world... but it will never be a simple task of discovering a magical solution and making everything better in one fell swoop, it will take time, it will take effort, there will be setbacks, and those that began the work will most definetly not see it finished... but given a choice between being a part of such a project to better the world and just sitting on my ass and waiting for someone else to fix this... I choose to work as hard as I physically can for what I believe in.

It's because Verbose is here.

1984 happens to be one of my favorite books, that's why. *Wink*

Either you force people to live better or they don't.

People can be forced into doing it. I just get sick of hearing people whine about how the world can't be improved. It can. You just need to make people be better.


I do have that effect from time to time.

You know what else would help on that fascist dystopian government? Making it like a religion, to further help prevent internal dissent and making everyone want to sign up to "fight in the name of god"

You know it works. History always repeats.

Nah, too heavy-handed.

You want a few religions to preach the same basic message and reinforce the government. That way, they'll spend all their effort arguing amongst themselves.

I think Verbose has just planned to be Big Brother since he was a baby and he's just pissed he can never actually achieve that goal.

Hoo boy.

*Popcorn*

Yay, another audience for Verb Vs. Someone else. And that someone else is me.

I understand the concept of a truly totalitarian and utilitarian government (as described in the Republic, "...only when philosophers become kings or kings become philosophers..."), but I am simply unable to accept the possibility of such a system being established and whoever is in charge (wether an individual [doubtful] or a select group [more likely]) not abusing such available power just for the sake of it, "... the purpose of power is itself, the purpose of torture is torture... power is not a means to an end, but an end in itself...", the human race being imperfect as it is, such optimistic hope is folly... unless I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

And while people for the most part will not act to improve their own lives (let alone the lives of others), through extended education it is possible to increase the numbers (and percentage) of those who are willing to make some effort to better their general situation... and if a couple of people with a larger vision than that come about because of such extended education... I think it's worth a shot.

I think its possible for individuals who truly want to better themselves to do so, however humanity, as a whole, never will. It is my opinion that, given the choice between working hard at something to achieve happiness, or not working hard and accepting complacency, most people would choose complacency. Why? Because its easier. And since the majority of the populace lacks sufficient motivation to actually try to improve their lot in life, or the world in which we live, nothing will ever truly be done to improve our current circumstance. People only change when there is the motivation to do so, whether it be an external motivator (such as Verb's fascist state) or an internal motivator (which is usually something selfish *cough there is no altruism cough*).

I've never had any desire to rule. In fact, if I grew up in the ideal state I would establish as supreme ruler I'd be a seditious malcontent. I'd probably have to be put down. I chafe and rebel against rigid authority.

I like nothing better than to ignore authority and have it ignore me.

That said, I still think the fascist state is a better one.


You are having a slight misunderstanding. My fault.

I don't think that the Ruler would be anywhere near the ideal. In fact, I assume that most rulers would fall somewhere a little closer to the worst possible than the best possible. Most of them would be somewhere in that middle range, though.

It was Erasmus who said "The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war."

A corrupt ruler in an efficient system is more beneficial than an honest ruler in an inefficient system and both are better than a corrupt ruler in an inefficient system.

My system doesn't try to aim for honest men. Honesty in rulers comes and goes as it will. So instead of trying to rely on such a fleeting quality, it strives to be an efficient system.


Now, now, let's not be cynical.

Altruism does exist because it's biologically advantageous for it to exist in the species. It's rare because it's even more advantageous to be able to fake it.

If you want to get meta and claim that doing good for the sake of good isn't really altruistic because the person enjoys doing good, I'm not going to argue with you. It's simply a point of view I think happens to be ridiculously silly because a lot of people who are altruistic feel bad when they do something selfish. This seems to run counter to the line of thought.

You're right, I had slightly misunderstood what the full extent of your thought was, and now that I see your full argument I feel that the fascist state proposed by you has been very well thought out to avoid the usual false and generally oblivious optimistic perceptions of hoping that the ruler will be altruistic enough to do what's best for everyone.

That being said, even though I understand your intent, substance, and form... I still disagree on the basis of my own belief that the world can be improved, you just have to realize that most people will need to be convinced and coerced to take action somehow...both Machiavelli, "The ends justify the means, SO LONG AS IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SATE (or global community now), and Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that in order to enact change you need to be willing to use the natural human tendencies of greed and guilt to create a general attitude of positive action.

And now that I have to return to class, let me just say that it's awesome to have found a forum that is capable of holding a serious conversation about such matters... I will be creating an interesting thread soon so be prepared.

Maybe you aren't understanding me then.

Because this is exactly what I proposed, only I wasn't so self-defeating as to want to convince the plebs what their best interest is. I don't think I need to argue to anybody about the willful ignorance and idiocy that is rampant in the general populous. The younger generations have an unprecedented access to information thanks to the internet. Opposing views are given more air-time, discussion on controversial subjects is an acceptable activity in the modern age.

And yet I doubt many people on any sides in this argument would claim that people as a whole know what's best for them. Some people might know [acronym="However you want to define "best""]best[/acronym] but for the most part people are ignorant and dumb and need to be told what to think. It's one of the basic notions behind a republic (which isn't a bad system of government - it's better than a pure democracy).

If we're going to be honest, most people don't even want to consider foreign policy or economic law. A good half - at minimum - simply want to do their job, get their paycheck and enjoy their spare time. The masses don't want "freedom" or "justice" or "liberty". They want bread and circuses. If they can eat and they are entertained, they are happy. Will there be some malcontents who want to aspire to such noble ideas? Yes. There always are some. But if we're looking to do the greatest good for the greatest many then those nails that stand out ought to be hammered in or removed completely.

I think that we're basically adhering to the same principle of an enlightened minority being the ones who will enact change to change the current status of the world, we just disagree (somewhat) on the method and on the final result.

Oh, I don't think the world will improve.

I just believe that it could. Our society preaches the value of ideals like democracy and justice and rights. This means that the people in the best position to enact positive change have been conditioned to believe in concepts that slow or outright forbid the necessary steps to make that change.

Add that to the fact that very few countries actually manage to keep a leader bringing change in power for more than a handful of years and you're simply in a relatively stagnant position.

I actually agree that we have taken the concepts of democracy and the protection of individual freedoms too far.

The first example is that the 2 term limit was established after the WWII winning, Depression ending, Civil rights advancing hell that was FDR's presidency (in case you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic)

The second is from my home country of Mexico, Benito Juarez was and will probably always be the greatest president our country ever had, he brought our economy up without the sadistic sacrifices of latter president (actually dictator) Porfirio Diaz, and he did it for his entire life, five consecutive terms of nothing but social advancement and kicking French ass... and people think it necessary to create a one term limit?

That doesn't really affect me so much.

Our previous Prime Minister had been in power for twelve years and was replaced by a man who is essentially a younger version of him.

Only the new guy looks more like an old lesbian.

good to know?

Why bother changing things? They'll just get screwed up again anyway.

I use a similar path of reasoning when attempting to convince my parents that cleaning the house is futile.

But at least before humans make mistakes again, the amount of time where it's a better world might make people want to work to keep it that way.

Its as easy said as it is done. I'm pretty sure theres quite a few corrupt preachers you could buy (if there wasn't corruption, there wouldn't be any boy touching). Just quietly execute the religious leaders that would disagree with you and replace them with those who would preach your messages. You could possibly intercept mail heading to the churches and replace their black books with ones laced with your own messages for a more subtle approach.

Tell me though Verbatitis, how would you deal with overpopulation? Surely the human need to breed would still be in full swing? The lemmings want create more lemmings. Executions would take too long to have any impact, and to move them to a scale which would start a decrease would draw public attention. Disease would be too messy, and possibly go out of control to the point where all of society crumbles without food. If you have control of the world, you couldn't declare war unless you leave a section of the planet in anarchy or allow rebellions to squash. Though the rebellions would have to happen so frequently or be so grossly large to out-pace global growth. Starvation would eventually kick in and definitely decrease the number of lemmings, though that would incite riots and possibly invoke a revolution.

I know that I've allready proffesed my own belief in a somewhat more alturistic and less forced aproach, but just for the sake of argument, and also because it's a scientific fact... Overpopulation is not such a problem as we make it out to be (but it is still a problem in certain circumstances) because the population of a planet will fluxtuate around a certain limit, which is inevitable since when a nation (or world nation) achieves a certain level of stability and wealth the population growth rate declines until it actually begins to become negative, upon which point the wealth drops somewhat and afterwards begins to rise once more along with population growth rates.

Haven't you noticed the trend?

In developed first-world countries, the average age of the first children born is slowly rising. Fifty years ago, I think it was just under 20 and now it's pushed back to about 25 and stretching out.

Civilisation gives people so many things to do that they keep putting off things like marriage and having kids until they're in a better position financially. Hell, it's not uncommon for people today to be twenty five, single, childless and jobless (so long as they're students).

And if it ever becomes a serious problem, taint part of the water supply to increase the chances of sterility. But that sort of thing is usually a bad idea. It's funny now but it'll bite you in the ass later.

The human race has the power to create world peace, every person has the ability to make a decision to put their gun down and stop fighting, if they all make it then peace ensues.

This gives you an interesting avenue to attain peace, if you can change people's psychologies, give them the ability and desire to put themselves in everybody elses shoes then you can fix a lot of problems.

Also, the best leader is one who has to have their position forced on them, if you ever desire power this makes you a poor choice to weild it.

The problem with this idea is that most people don't want to put themselves in someone else's place, and double standards are commonplace. Also different people will still see things differently than each other. Just because you would react a certain way to a given situation or circumstance doesn't mean the next person will react the same.

Now to the second half. A leader who has to be forced into the position could also be just as likely to half-@$$ the job in order to get out of it.

To answer the OP, "if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem." I know I'm being trite, but it is true after all. By being apathetic about the situation in Darfur, you are as much a part of the problem as the murdering rapists. After all, you could be preventing him. And not by protesting, but by actively killing them, or solving the water crisis.

People haven't changed, nor will they ever. Egyptians taxed their citizens, the Greeks voted and had sex with children, and Alexander decided to conquer the world out of rabid nationalism. My point is any problem that derives from human nature (e.g. society) will never, ever be solved, though it can be controlled.

The OP was vague, so I'll just list some problems and you can see if we have any hope of solving them:

If you were talking about global warming, ask yourself how long the charities have been collecting money to save the rainforests (what the hell do they use that money for, anyway?).

If you were talking about disease, ask yourself how useful bed nets are in preventing malaria and why exactly the U.S./N. punishes countries for using methods that actually work.

If you were talking about world hunger, check out the AAA (not al-anon) and find out how much they pay landowners not to farm.

If you were talking about world thirst, visit Las Vegas and then visit the rest of Nevada (bring plenty of water and sunblock).

If you were talking about genocide, Darfur is a great example, but far from the only one. Darfur is also a great example of what happens once water starts to disappear.

If you still have any hope or faith in mankind whatsoever, please read up on the whole De Beers blood diamond fiasco and be prepared to feel very, very bad.

The solution to that is simple. Help the worlds volcanoes to erupt, the gases will block out sunlight and reflect it back, cooling the earth. While the world is in darkness, eradicate the human species and boom, no more global warming (well, no one to complain about it anyways.)



If there weren't any humans, there wouldn't be any problems with diseases, now would there?



If there isn't anyone to be hungry, then there wouldn't be any world hunger.



Again, no people, no thirst.



If the people disappear too, then there wouldn't be any more genocide.



Ooooo, we can make diamonds out of blood now? Nothing more human than to put importance on a shiny rock and stick it in their body somehow. Next thing you tell me is we used to mine a piss-colored shiny metal and trade it for goods.

Yes, thank you for supporting a string of actions that would undo the very foundation of society - mutual safety.

After all, I'm sure all sorts of technological and medical marvels will continue when the world is plunged into anarchy this time. I know all the other times in human history a lack of order and firm rulership resulted in a time of no advancement but I'm sure this time will be different.


Why should I feel guilty?

I don't know them. I don't know you. I don't mind people being killed for diamonds. Diamonds are pretty and they occasionally have a practical purpose too. The people living far away from me don't supply me with either of those things.

This is happening in Europe, I think.


He would just do whatever the hell he wanted until he was kicked out

Aide:"Sir, the homeless persons count is rising. What do you suggest?"
Leader (Leaning back in chair, feet on desk, playing PSP): "Send a SWAT team down to the suburbs."
Aide: "Uh... Why?"
Leader: "To knock the hobo population down a bit, don't you listen to what you're saying?


This isn't an expert opinion, but I'm pretty sure they use it for saving the rainforest.


Plan double-theta for solving the world's problems: Compress all humans into bricks. Build giant wall.

i dont know why, but i busted out laughing at that one!

i think you are correct on the europe thing. i think there are even a few countries with a negative growth rate

Japan is one of the countries with negative growth... and I cant remember the others.

On the blood diamond thing, DeBeers has moved their headquarters from London to Africa (cant remember the city) and have stopped buying outside diamonds to control prices worldwide, they've actually made an honest effort to clean up their act... if you want more info you can find it yourself.

and also, if you simply stop supporting a specific cause (whatever that may be) because there is no immediate gratification, think about the fact that it took humanity 100k years to reach this pont... changes are going to take time. Also you can't ask people to take direct accion in every or even one global problem like that... if you find even one organization that is truly passionate about it then you should be happy because most anybody will not go out of their comfort zone if you propose a change that is going to be too drastic, in order to really do anything you have to be a little subtle and fly under the radar most of the time.

And on a somewhat funny note, one of my friends was voted most likely to win a Nobel Peace Prize and Stewie from Family Guy for our yearbook, and he always says that it makes perfect sense because once he becomes supreme dictator of the earth and kills everone else there wont be any more war...

I wonder what the outcome would be if everyone on the planet was given a firearm, and not a small one. Retract government to a safe location along with all military and police authorities. Would the worst of the worst be annihilated by those willing to defend themselves?

Humans are like a disease, we constantly destroy other forms of life to make room for our ourselves. And how do you stop it? You get rid of it.

I guess what i'm trying to say is, if you really want to save the planet, kill us all.

I would sneak in with the government. There may or may not be a completely unrelated slaughter there, but I'd just want to stay safe.

But hell, if you did this, other governments would start to spring up.

No, life is a disease.

"Oh, humans are so bad. We kills things and change the environment to suit our purposes."

So does every living thing on the planet. We're just a shitload better than all of the others because out big evolutionary advantage builds on itself exponentially over time.


It's what happens every time you have anarchy.

There's a time of lawless killing and then people start to make alliances. A charismatic or powerful personality gets given the position of leader to allow for swift decision making and that leader becomes an arbiter.

Government is a natural function of our species because it's the natural progression of any pack animal who becomes sophisticated enough. It's pooling the resources of dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions more people than you could if you stuck to the usual primitive methods.