Your Stance on Death

Originally Posted by Anann

Yes you present logic Dingo, but I have long ago seen that humanity is not a logical species, they work off of avarice and other petty emotions and desires. Too few care about the survival of everyone and too many care only about the survival of self.

You just said that you cannot let "hope blind logic," but you're arguing against using logic in the discussion of an illogical species. What exactly is your stance on logic vs. emotion?

The world is in the hands of corporations now, and they don't care if they destroy the world, as long as they make another dollar in the process.

The moment I hear someone bring up the "evil corporations" argument, I stop to wonder if they're being serious or not.

Where is foresight there? Who gives a ♥♥♥♥ about the end of fiscal year profits, if the world will be destroyed in another 50 or so years?(not literal) Far too many it would seem.

While there are many negative side-effects that result from the competitive market, ultimately, these many corporations wouldn't exist if they didn't provide something that the masses wanted or needed.

It is nothing but short sighted and selfish, this world is not yours or mine, if the people alive now destroy it, there will be no people who come after. Where is the progress if everyone ends up dead?

But we're not going to end up dead. People have been saying that all humanity is going to die for centuries, and it hasn't happened. Nor will it happen for a long, long time (And once we begin colonizing other worlds--which isn't too far off, mind you--it will be nearly impossible to eradicate the human species).

Where is the international consortium of progress? Where is the effort? I look around and all I see is more war, and more death, and more hatred.

War and death will always exist, but so too will progress. Just because war and death exists doesn't mean progress doesn't exist; one must accept that there will always be negatives to this world.

A perfect utopia is an idealist myth.

Love exists only on a small scale, if love and hate are equals, where is the global love? Where is the cooperation? Where is the difference? A single act of hate can destroy so much, and cause ripples in this world. No such act of love can even come close.

Does "love" even exist?

I know eutopia is a myth.

The point is that humanity is far too dependant on war.

Do the masses really know what is good for them? I wager they do not. Humans tend to be very stupid in masses.

The bottom line is that there aren't that many intelligent people out there, bring humans together in large quantities and they get lost in the crowd.

We aren't making enough progress. All it takes is one act of hate to set us back.

Progress shouldn't be such a struggle.

You would be hard pressed to find any global interest that wasn't centered on making a buck.

This world can be destroyed easily now. You might have been able to use your argument 100 years ago, but now, devastation is just a button push away.

And seriously, laughing my ♥♥♥♥ing ass off in my mind.
Colonizing other worlds? Now THAT is idealistic. We don't have enough cooperation for such an undertaking.

If humans are incredibly stupid in masses (And you're probably right), then why do you think that people should work together on a wide scale to bring change to the world instead of relying on a small number of intelligent businessman/politicians and competition?

As for colonizing other worlds, with the correct amount of money, I have no doubt that it is possible. Space exploration should be the human race's No. 1 priority, and I have no doubt that we will see a resurgence in the interest of exploring space within the next 20 or so years (We're already starting to see the interest increase as of now).

Originally Posted by Anann

The bottom line is that there aren't that many intelligent people out there, bring humans together in large quantities and they get lost in the crowd.

Yes, we all know the Milgram effect. But Milgram's participants learned a lesson...

The Milgram Experiment raised questions about the ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress suffered by the participants. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated, 15 percent chose neutral responses (92% of all former participants responding).[11] Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants. Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress:

"While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority… To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself… I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience…"

We aren't making enough progress. All it takes is one act of hate to set us back.

Ten years ago, this would have set off a bloodbath.

Progress shouldn't be such a struggle.

Progress would be easy if one person could enforce their vision on the world - but then that would be dictatorship. Democracy and co-operation is hard, because people are different and have opinions. Deal with it.

You would be hard pressed to find any global interest that wasn't centered on making a buck.

Charities.

This world can be destroyed easily now. You might have been able to use your argument 100 years ago, but now, devastation is just a button push away.

50 years ago, devastation was a button push away. Today, Obama is calling for a world without nukes. Oh, and on that note: there's a black US president. That's progress.

And seriously, laughing my ♥♥♥♥ing ass off in my mind.
Colonizing other worlds? Now THAT is idealistic. We don't have enough cooperation for such an undertaking.

Despite the fact that the international community has already co-operated in the creation of an international space station?

It definitely should be primary focus, however logic tells me that it won't be, since it isn't profitable.

What I meant was that, the people in charge should be smart people with the right motivations and the right goals.

They should not be people who are driven by greed and are looking to make money or exploit resources to yet again make more money.

Example: Congress should not be run by lobbyists, yet it is.

Congress should be run by people who want to make the country better. If all of them got together wanting to make the country better, they would actually be able to make changes that would benefit the country.

But it isn't like that, it's all about lining their pockets with gold. In the optimal situation, there would be no congress.

There would be only one person, with the power to change everything. All that person needs is the right state of mind and the knowledge and wisdom to foresee consequence.

Change would be made because no one could disagree, and as long as that person remains true to their goals, then all change would be for the better.

Look at Ancient Rome, it was an empire, and it lasted for thousands of years. No government has lasted as long. Not even close. The progress they made was astounding.

Think of the progress such a force could make in today's world.

A black president should not be considered progress, it should be considered a sign of how disgustingly primitive America is.

Originally Posted by Anann

It definitely should be primary focus, however logic tells me that it won't be, since it isn't profitable.

But didn't you say that it is futile to apply logic to an illogical species?

What I meant was that, the people in charge should be smart people with the right motivations and the right goals.

They should not be people who are driven by greed and are looking to make money or exploit resources to yet again make more money.

Everything we do is motivated by greed.

Congress should be run by people who want to make the country better. If all of them got together wanting to make the country better, they would actually be able to make changes that would benefit the country.

But it isn't like that, it's all about lining their pockets with gold. In the optimal situation, there would be no congress.

Often, positive things result as a side-effect of a person's ambitions and desire for money.

Many of the technological innovations of the past century are an example.

There would be only one person, with the power to change everything. All that person needs is the right state of mind and the knowledge and wisdom to foresee consequence.

Change would be made because no one could disagree, and as long as that person remains true to their goals, then all change would be for the better.

It's impossible for everyone to agree on everything. If everyone did agree on everything, however, I would imagine the world being a very boring place.

A black president should not be considered progress, it should be considered a sign of how disgustingly primitive America is.

I don't know. While the United States may be behind the "social advancement" curve in the Western world, on a global scale, there are countries with far more prejudice than the US.

I don't think the color of skin is a justifable prejudice.

My logic can be applied, what I said was that basically you can't expect them to be logical. You can expect me to be logical, but not humanity.

Again, I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ if people disagree. They should be allowed to disagree, it just won't change anything.

They can cry all they like but they should NOT be able to hinder progress.

People rarely disagree about the right things, or for the right reasons. So they should be ignored, and the ruler should have the ability to ignore them.

As I stated, the ruler would have no need to listen to the people. They already know what needs to be done.

Ultimately, there would be no need for anyone to agree, because regardless they would have no control over the outcome.

Originally Posted by Andross

Everything we do is motivated by greed.

Evidence?

Unless you define symbiotic and altruistic acts as greed, because these actions are ultimately benefiting the longevity of the individual's genetic structure. In which case, greed is now a synonym for action. However, if you define greed in the sense of actions which are consciously made only to benefit the individual or those close to the individual, then, no, all actions are not inherently greedy.

I find ignoring flat out wrong comments works better than addressing them.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Evidence?

Unless you define symbiotic and altruistic acts as greed, because these actions are ultimately benefiting the longevity of the individual's genetic structure. In which case, greed is now a synonym for action. However, if you define greed in the sense of actions which are consciously made only to benefit the individual or those close to the individual, then, no, all actions are not inherently greedy.

What is and isn't greedy isn't based on actions; it is based on thoughts and emotions. The reason why we help people is to feel good about ourselves.

If we didn't have the desire to do good due to the emotions that result from doing good not existing, we wouldn't do good; I am sure you agree with this. Without those pesky emotions getting in the way, we would essentially put ourselves first, and if we didn't see any considerable situations in which helping another would benfit us, we wouldn't help one another. However, we do have emotions, and since we are motivated by the desire to feel that we've done good, we are ultimately working for that emotion; we are greedy for that emotion.

So yes, everything we do is spawned out of greed/selfishness, even so-called "altruism."

Originally Posted by Anann

Congress should be run by people who want to make the country better. If all of them got together wanting to make the country better, they would actually be able to make changes that would benefit the country.

But it isn't like that, it's all about lining their pockets with gold. In the optimal situation, there would be no congress.

There would be only one person, with the power to change everything. All that person needs is the right state of mind and the knowledge and wisdom to foresee consequence.

Change would be made because no one could disagree, and as long as that person remains true to their goals, then all change would be for the better.

Look at Ancient Rome, it was an empire, and it lasted for thousands of years. No government has lasted as long. Not even close. The progress they made was astounding.

Think of the progress such a force could make in today's world.

So there should be a dictator who doesn't abuse their power and who ONLY acts in the world's best interest? I thought you didn't believe in utopia.

A black president should not be considered progress, it should be considered a sign of how disgustingly primitive America is.

Slow progress, but progress nonetheless. Sorry!

Originally Posted by zeldaduderox

^Without that comfort there would be nothing to fear, as there would be nothing.

I'm without that comfort. I believe there's something.

Originally Posted by zeldaduderox

Death is not an enemy, it is a sister. And I believe in Heaven and Hell as I am Christian.

Will I go to hell?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

So there should be a dictator who doesn't abuse their power and who ONLY acts in the world's best interest? I thought you didn't believe in utopia.

You keep telling me that my world isn't a utopia. :|

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

You keep telling me that my world isn't a utopia. :|

I was being facetious, silly goose. Clearly an authoritarian regime with no corruption is a fanciful idea, so it's LIKE utopia in that it's an 'if nobody abused the system, then everything would be perfect' scenario. Which is too big an If.

Originally Posted by Andross

What is and isn't greedy isn't based on actions; it is based on thoughts and emotions. The reason why we help people is to feel good about ourselves.

If we didn't have the desire to do good due to the emotions that result from doing good not existing, we wouldn't do good; I am sure you agree with this. Without those pesky emotions getting in the way, we would essentially put ourselves first, and if we didn't see any considerable situations in which helping another would benfit us, we wouldn't help one another. However, we do have emotions, and since we are motivated by the desire to feel that we've done good, we are ultimately working for that emotion; we are greedy for that emotion.

So yes, everything we do is spawned out of greed/selfishness, even so-called "altruism."

Then yes, you've redefined what 'greed' means. In which case, I sort of with you.

The only failure in your claim (other than redefining greed) is that we aren't motivated to act in ways that are primarily beneficial to ourselves, but instead, in ways which are primarily beneficial to the longevity of our genetic structure, as that motivation preserves our genetic structure.

Originally Posted by Anann

Yes you present logic Dingo, but I have long ago seen that humanity is not a logical species, they work off of avarice and other petty emotions and desires.

As opposed to little green men from Mars who are a totally logical? Yes humanity is not a logical species but they are the closest thing there is to one. Course that's true for some more than others.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Then yes, you've redefined what 'greed' means. In which case, I sort of with you.

"Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions. " -Dictionary.com

While it does say "especially for wealth or possessions," it doesn't refer to them alone. I don't see how my definition of greed is a redifinition of the word, as it doesn't contradict this definition at all; if you have the desire to help people, you thus have the desire to feel good about yourself.

The only failure in your claim (other than redefining greed) is that we aren't motivated to act in ways that are primarily beneficial to ourselves, but instead, in ways which are primarily beneficial to the longevity of our genetic structure, as that motivation preserves our genetic structure.

We are promoting the genetic structure of our species as a result of being motivated by emotion. No one thinks, "hey, this is going to benefit the survival of our species; I'm going to help this person." They think, "Hey, I want to help people. I would be a good person if I did."

We benefit from helping others by experiencing the emotion that results from doing good. If that emotion wasn't there, how would you be so sure that we would care about the progression of our species; what would make the emotionless man believe that the preservation of the human genetic structure at the cost of his own gain is more logical than, well, his own gain? If anything, we would become nihilist and not care at all.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I was being facetious, silly goose. Clearly an authoritarian regime with no corruption is a fanciful idea, so it's LIKE utopia in that it's an 'if nobody abused the system, then everything would be perfect' scenario. Which is too big an If.

If a benevolent absolute dictator controlled everything it wouldn't matter since abusing the system would be nigh impossible.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

If a benevolent absolute dictator controlled everything it wouldn't matter since abusing the system would be nigh impossible.

Again, a big If. Which was the comparison I was making.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Again, a big If. Which was the comparison I was making.

Then I edit my statement: You keep telling me that my world isn't a eutopia. :|