Society

[The One True Kefka]

*If you haven't already, read my essay in the Creation Gallery.*

I want to hear your input on it, what should be done about society, etc. Be honest; I need some good ideas/opinions.

[SickAndWretched]

I think its to far gone.. we need to restart and get ride of religons and countries and become a unified people.. 'cause borders only bring strife.. peace cannot be caged.

::note::
I didn't read you essay.. too long.. sorry..

[TranceRolin]

Create a new unified nation? Sorry, doesn't work. You forgot nationalism and human stubbornness. And the government would never work because everyone wants something different. I think that it would be better if we just had one big criminal nation that's like a huge jail for social misfits and people that are so pathetic that they try to or actually do hurt others for no reason.

[Kafen]

Well....
1. We get all of the people in the world into one country: China, Russia, Canada, Mexico, United States, or Brazil. any one could do. Then we blow them up and start our evolution over.
2. send all of the "preps," "gangstas," or "punk posers," and send them to live in the Yukon. so all of the peaceful Buddhist monks can live in happiness.
3. Or we could just leave it alone, so it could blow

[Voltaire]

In a more serious sense, why not 'evolve'? I'm not going to challenge the sickly spectre of evolution vs. creationism, for that's only a flame magnet.

Perhaps society could evolve through a set of genetic engineering or cybernetic implants that served to 'override' human nature.

There is a bit of a problem with starting over. Once the machines of social movements are in motion, it becomes near impossible to stop them.

There's a Catholic thinker, Teilhard or Teilhart (I'm not sure how it's spelled), that said the spirit and mind must evolve as the body does. I disbelieve in the spirit, but perhaps the evolution of the mind could get to a point where 'humanity' is a collective lifeform.

However, individuality could counter the desire of a collective lifeform as the ultimate goal of humanity. However, an energy-based lifeform is probably a stop along such a ladder. Perhaps we'd stop being human and start being 'god(s)?'

Here's a way of existence I wrote about in a novel of mine: Imagine if humankind lived as energy-based lifeforms. They could contact each other at any moment they wished, or isolate themselves. They could be free from matter, and look at any moment in the present or past.

By bending the fabric of time, they could revive people from previous eras. Eventually, every member of humankind since the Stone Age lives again. They are immortal, cannot hurt each other, and can exist past the end of the universe.

[The One True Kefka]

Hm.. I've thought about this topic off and on for the last few days, and I agree with the 'prison' theory; that we should simply remove the murderers, rapists, and what have you; put them in Siberia, or perhaps create a place like that where the miscreants can live out their lives. People would find it cruel, but it's crueller to leave them in society, where they can murder as they please.. etc.

The 'one unified nation' idea wouldn't work. There are too many people on Earth to do that. We'd be forced to genocide our entire race, except for the future rulers, scientists, doctors, etc. of this 'nation', and restart humanity from there. That.. really.. wouldn't be such a bad idea. We'd be rid of the idiots and whatnot corrupting our gene pool.

What's corrupting our gene pool? Rather, who? The murderer/rapist/child molester type, of course. Mentally retarded people capable of producing children should be kept from having children. Incestual pregnance should be much more harshly punished. Life support for those not expected to recover should be eliminated. That sort of thing. It sounds cold, but why waste money on people who never had a chance to begin with?

Comments?

[Voltaire]

Personally, I think, given new genetic technologies, fixing those types could eventually be easier one day. However, until then, let's try to remove inbred hicks, starting with Pat Robertson.

[SickAndWretched]

The 'one unified nation' idea wouldn't work. There are too many people on Earth to do that.

you misunderstood me.. I meant if we got rid of all "lock-minded" people. (Which is basically anyone one that overly believes something, such as: a religion, or other lack-minded moral bondaries or currency.) And I said nothing about an "Unified nation[/n]" I said UNIFIED PEOPLE.. which would not be governed by a government. People would act out of the goodest of their hearts with influence from others (except maybe parents).. I know that sounds boring.. but it could work..

By bending the fabric of time, they could revive people from previous eras. Eventually, every member of humankind since the Stone Age lives again. They are immortal, cannot hurt each other, and can exist past the end of the universe.

My dad once explained to me how it is impossible to travel back in time.. I forget exactly how.. I should probably read that book called "The God Particale".

Perhaps society could evolve through a set of genetic engineering or cybernetic implants that served to 'override' human nature.

That would be to scary. I mean it would be cool.. but I would want my body to be part machine. and not just cause of artport sercurity (both jokingly and kinda seriously)

What's corrupting our gene pool? Rather, who? The murderer/rapist/child molester type, of course. Mentally retarded people capable of producing children should be kept from having children. Incestual pregnance should be much more harshly punished. Life support for those not expected to recover should be eliminated. That sort of thing. It sounds cold, but why waste money on people who never had a chance to begin with?

I agree.. life isn't "great" at al.. its easier to take then someones stuff. and easier to make then anything else..

[TranceRolin]

The Impossibility of Time Travel in one statement;

In order to "travel back in time" one would need a database of where every particle in the universe and what state it would be in at any given time . . . A scan would take time, and thus making it impossible, beyond the current unavailable technology to alter the states of matter.

But if that technology ever DID become available, then it would be possible to create a different world by constructing it particle by particle . . . Think about doing 3D mapping through binary code, and that's the kind of thing we're talking about here. And of course, a large-scale version of whatever contraption could possibly do a thing.

So no. f**k you, ya stupid sci-fi fanatics. Time doesn't exist, it was simply something man created to suit his needs. Time of day and perhaps a calendar is all that we need, but no, we need years to remember which calendar it happened in. That doesn't mean that we created a new dimension where there are floating cows and everything is in black and white. f**k you, Twilight Zone.

Besides . . . I've heard talk about time travel being fourth dimensional. f**k off, and learn about patterns. Look at the advances each dimension makes on the preceding one, 1st to 0th, 2nd to 1st, 3rd to 2nd. 4th would, theoritically, while following the same pattern, mean that the law of physics that a space can only be occupied by one piece of matter at a time would be completely defunct, and that sure as f**k wouldn't work well with the laws of momentum and movement and with the theory of gravity.

[The~Inquisitor]

MUST you curse so much, Rolin?

[Maxy]

Really, time does exist. It can be manipulated. It can be dilated. Read up on Special Relativity

Time travel is possible, but not in the conventional sense. It's true that it is very unlikely that humans will be able to do it, but that isn't the same as it not being possible. Read up on Quantum Theory.

Why do we need to know the position of every possible atom in the universe? Is it so we do not 'materialize' on top of them? Well if that the case then we don't have to worry about that. There is an average of 1 atom per cubic metre in space, almost all of it is in stars. The odds of a significant mass being there is so tiny it's negligable, so long as we calculate the positions of nearby star, which is really straight-forward stuff. If this is what you meant by "one would need a database of where every particle in the universe", why would we need to know its state? What does that do for us?

[TranceRolin]

Yes, I must.

There is no logical way for time to exist. Humans made up time. Just like they made up deities and Steven King. If I were to travel back to five minutes ago, then how would it be possible? There would be some sort of record of what it was like five minutes ago. And if it was only a record of a small spot, then it would only be the state of matter from five minutes ago in that spot. Hence transforming matter to a different state, NOT time travel.

Okay, let's say that there is the whole alternate dimension bullnuts going on. Each of these dimensions would have it's own frequency, call number, or something to identify itself from all other dimensions, and hence there would need to be a record of each one; And if one had a way to go to each call number or frequency, and there was nothing occupying that space, then it would violate the law that states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Let's throw in the infinate dimension theory, now. This says that time-space is infinate, since there are infinate dimensions. And with infinate dimensions, there would be no way to catalog these dimensions and hence no way to travel between them, completely trashing the limited dimension theory, and thus trashing itself.

Old Quantum Theory, new Quantum Theory; They're both QUITE expansive and ever-growing. Feel free to do something other than cite its name to actually make a point, I'd be glad to throw it to the ground and stomp it out.


Edit - This is getting off topic . . . Whatsay if anyone wants to continue this, we do so in a different thread.

[Kamau]

TranceRolin said:

And the government would never work because everyone wants something different.

Yet it seems perfectly logical that EVERYONE in America wants the same thing, EVERYONE in Japan wants the same thing, EVERYONE in Russia wants the same thing? Only if they're fanatical arse-licking blind patriots.

No matter how the world is governed, EVERY method has some major flaws.

In my personal opinion, anarchy seems to be the best method (not just saying that because I like punk rock ). I mean true anarchy, not just a load of punks beating the crap out of the queen. As in every community is governed by itself. Every person lives for themselves. Hell, animals can do it and they survive fine, it's only when someone becomes a dominant figure and starts to take authority that things get tipped out of balance and the weaker people get screwed over.

Survival of the fittest. Only the weakest get chomped by predators, not by corporate bigwigs.

[SickAndWretched]

yes.. but it would be impossible for our soceity to change to that as of now.. 'cause we become to d**n depenant on money and resorces.

Honestly, there really is no gorvernment of any type.. Justice is just bull nuts, 'cause if someone is going to do something, they will try their d**nest to get that thing done no matter what.. even if its illegal or immoral or whatever.

[TranceRolin]

I feel that SOME form of rules are an absolute necessity. Barter systems are always good ways to get everything done. The only problem is that this hurts the progress of technology. You need wealthy supporters to get anything done, and if there is no currency, no barter, no nothing; Then anyone that tries to advance technology would starve.

Money, yes. Have limits to how much any person can hoarde, and if anyone tries to use that money as power, then they're found out and are royally f**ked.

As to getting money . . . The amount of money in circulation grows with the population of adults accordingly. The people that do the hardest jobs, which is to say arduous manual labor and the progress of technology would get paid the most, and would also have the biggest restrictions on how much they could save. Those with less difficult jobs that are also in less demand like say, architecture . . . Would get LESS money but be allowed to save up more.

With this process, those in society that are needed less have the ability to gain municipal power but why would anyone care when society can function well without one of them, considering that they are in less use and their jobs aren't extremely difficult. With the people that make more money, sure, they have more money day to day, but they would never be able to save up and buy the biggest and best luxuries around, but would have a much better standard of living than the rest of the people.

And what about the workers that strive to keep this system in balance? They get the median for both income and savings cap.

I really think that this system would work . . . The savings cap is there to make sure that noone can gain power through economical influence, and if the whole world adopted this policy, then methinks all would be fine and dandy governmentally and economically. As for a justice/law system . . . Yeah, that would kinda be complex, and I'm not even going to try to tackle that one . . . I'll allow someone else to.