Hope
Monday’s are always a disappointment but reading Shegetz’s thoughts below regarding humanity was a particular low point – what’s even more disappointing is so many here supported his position. I’d like to reply if I may…

The reason we don’t get 'eaten by snakes' is not simply down to having knives, it is because we have the brains to outwit them, learn from our experience and crucially, the ability inform others that snakes might be dangerous.

The size of our brain has been the greatest asset for humans it has also been responsible for some of out worst traits - greed, jealousy, bigotry, racism. Granted a troupe of chimps will display similar characteristics but they don’t posses the big bulbous noggin required to wage their bad boy attitude worldwide. These are also traits that infants are free of, but they quickly learn by mimicking what they see around them.

The good news is that even miserable cynics like Shegetz realise that the desire to live in peace is something that is at least in theory a possibility; it would seem however our supposedly superior brains simply haven't evolved sufficiently to allow us to do so.

But there is hope. It will not be wars or bullets that destroy mankind, it will be the effects of continuing to shit in our own nest. It will be this that eventually brings about a catastrophic global cull of humans, which in all reality is our only hope of survival.

Hopefully the few that remain will have the brains to realise how close we became to making ourselves extinct, learn adapt and evolve from there.

But the late Bill Hicks put it far more eloquently than I…

“I had a vision of a way we could have no enemies ever again, if you’re interested in this. Anybody interested in hearing this? It’s kind of an interesting theory, and all we have to do is one decisive act and we can rid the world of all our enemies at once. Here’s what we do. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defence every year, trillions of dollars? Instead, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one being excluded, not one, we could as one race explore outer space together in peace, for ever.”
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 10:56, 22 replies)

Well, yes, in magic fairy land.
that's a brilliant idea. In the same way that Communism is a brilliant idea. It only works if EVERY SINGLE PERSON is a good, honest person having a good, honest day, every day, forever.

You don't even need to be a particularly evil person to fuck it up, just be a normal human being who likes what they have around them and couldn't in all honesty give a significant toss about the rest of the world, since they are spending most of their time with more pressing, immediate and local concerns.

I'm with the cynics on this - we'll never conquer world hunger, we'll never eliminate poverty, we'll never eradicate crime, we'll never stop war, oppression, bigotry and anvery other scourge of the race that can be gathered under the catch-all heading of "being unfair".

It doesn't by any means mean you shouldn't try and minimise those things, but don't be deluded it's a fight you can win.
( Mockingbird Practitioner of SCIENCE, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 11:15, closed)

Yes well...
As long as there is difference there will never be peace.

It only takes 2 people to disagree and to believe that their opinion is right to start a war.

If people believe in something enough, and they are willing to kill or die for it, then we will never avoid conflict.

lol - 1st prize on 'Most depressing QOTW' :P
(ldwater otherwise known as a 'jive turkey', Mon 30 Jun 2008, 11:24, closed)

@spimf
Both you and Shegetz both make very good points. But what we all seem to have forgotten is this one burning question:

Ok, so the enthusiastic young Trevor Dougherty has managed to gather 5,814 people together to make a great big "peace" sign in a field...

...WHAT THE FUCK HAS THIS ACTUALLY ACHIEVED????

That is all.
(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 11:30, closed)

Okay, so we spend all our defence money on taking care of 'the poor'
Who is poor enough for this help?
To what level do we help them?
Can we really afford to feed, clothe (and educate) all these people? Throwing money at a problem doesn't stop it.

A lot of people are poor because of politics, corruption and greed. Throwing money at it won't change it, but that doesn't mean that it can't change via other means.

Furthermore, what's to stop a country invading/attacking us if we stop spending on defence?
How are we to stop paying for defence if we still have soldiers on active duty? Leave them to die? Bring them home and leave the countries we invaded in chaos?

Neither cynicism nor idealism is pragmatic enough for practical solutions. There is hope, but there are also some ideas that won't work.
(tarbin tarbis, tarbit, tarbamus, tarbimus, tarbant, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 11:37, closed)

...
@Mockingbird - your critique of Communism is well short of the mark. Communism is much more sophisticated than a vague notion that, hey, sharing's nice, guys. Marxism, for example, has at its centre a series of strong metaphysical claims - the social aspect is only a side effect. The same tends to be true of other communistic movements, although in different ways. (The Levellers were communists of a sort, but you can't compare 17th-century religious radicals with Marxists.)


@ancrenne:
Your points suppose that people disagreeing will automatically fight wars about their disagreements. There is no causal link - that is not inevitable. What starts wars isn't difference but the belief, and actions taken base don that belief, that one party has the right to assert power over the other by force.

What's wrong with force? And - even allowing that there is something - why is there a significant moral difference between force and reason? (After all, we do tend to think in terms of people being forced to accept this or that by a powerful argument.) I'm not sure that there is one - although it's something I want to do more work on.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 11:46, closed)

@ tarbin
the reason such ideas don't work is because you cannot see beyond your current mindset

to most people the idea of a humanity free from conflict and suffering is impossible due to fear and mistrust of people they will never even meet

to explain the end of conflict in terms such individuals could comprehend would be like trying to explain how to install a dish-washer to a squirrel
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 11:46, closed)

But, spimf
Why would you want a world free from conflict?

(In fact, what, exactly, do you mean by conflict? You're disagreeing with Tarbin here. That's a conflict - so you can't really be advocating an absence of conflict.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 11:51, closed)

emzyme your being silly now
on the one hand who wouldn't want a world free of conflict - as in death of millions of innocent people due to the indifference, squabbling grasping and general FUCK YOU attitudes of our supposed govenrments and leaders.

on the other hand if its a fight your after - then come round here and i'll stab you in the face

*erm*
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 11:57, closed)

@Spimf
No - you're poisoning the well now. Nothing in what I said implies that we would not be better off without *many* conflicts. We would. But I don't think that eliminating conflict in abstracto makes much sense - that'd seem to be tantamount to narcolepsy. And because I can't see how such an end would be meaningful, I can't see how it could be desirable.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 12:06, closed)

^
sharpens face stabbing knife
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 12:09, closed)

@spimf
No, my mindset is not limited, Earth is limited.

We don't (at the moment) have enough resources to feed and clothe everybody. Nothing to do with how evolved our brains are.

There will always be suffering in one form or another. We can reduce it, but never eradicate it completely.
(tarbin tarbis, tarbit, tarbamus, tarbimus, tarbant, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 12:13, closed)

tarbin your wrong
and your buying the bullshit they push at us

there is plenty of resources, food, and energy to go round. However what we have is a pyramid system, the few at the top demand the majority of the resources then shit on the ones below.
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 12:18, closed)

Too many people
Not enough fuel.

K-Tech Industries^TM present the bio-diesel-homebrew-kit.
Has you child died a twisting, horrible death? Shove it in the vat with the potato-peelings from dinner last night, and your lastest dose of "solid waste".
Crank up the pressure, and after 48 hours, you'll have sweet, fumey diesel-goodness to run your car.

Order now and get a free tub of "Space Wax"!
( Cawl, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 12:38, closed)

My wrong is what?
And who are they?

The reason we use so many resources is because we need them. If everyone used as much resources as us, there wouldn't be enough to go around. We can reduce our consumption of resources, but that still isn't enough.
(tarbin tarbis, tarbit, tarbamus, tarbimus, tarbant, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 12:41, closed)

@tarbin
they? governments - sorry did you think they were truthful organisations with our interests at heart - wake up mate. honestly - wake up.

not shouting here just picking through your comments...

'The reason we use so many resources is because we need them'.NO WE ARE ARE WASTEFUL 'If everyone used as much resources as us, there wouldn't be enough to go around'. YOU HAVE JUST POINTED OUT THE FLAW IN YOUR OWN ARGUMENT WE OVER-CONSUME 'We can reduce our consumption of resources, but that still isn't enough.' CURRENTLY YES, BUT WE NEED TO REDUCE OUR DEMAND OR WE WILL DESTROY THE SOURCE OF OUR RESOURCES - THE PLANET WE LIVE ON.

the earth is not here to support just us, one single uber species - it is a eco system - if one species gets out of hand Gaia will allow it to become extinct

our extinction would benefit the earth. the purpose of life is for it to proliferate within the confines AND the resources of the eco system. not rape the planet and gorge till we're so fat we're all nermericans then wonder why theres suddenly a shortage of everything and things have got a bit shit
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 12:57, closed)

Erm
I like kittens.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Mon 30 Jun 2008, 14:51, closed)

^^^
ninja laser death war kittens?
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Mon 30 Jun 2008, 14:57, closed)

Are there any other kind of kittens..?
Sorry for interrupting what looks like a sensible conversation, spimf... but someone has to bring kittens into it. And I can't be arsed to do 'sensible' today :-)
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Mon 30 Jun 2008, 15:13, closed)

@Ancrenne
"Your points suppose that people disagreeing will automatically fight wars about their disagreements. There is no causal link - that is not inevitable. What starts wars isn't difference but the belief, and actions taken base don that belief, that one party has the right to assert power over the other by force."

True, but 'difference' is the cause and belief is the catalyist to conflict.

Think football violence - two people are different because they believe that their team is better / right / superior in some way.

If they believe that their view is better than anyone elses, and they have the will to impose that view on everyone else then they fight & kill to impose their view / eliminate those who do not agree.

Without difference there can be no cause for conflict.
(ldwater otherwise known as a 'jive turkey', Mon 30 Jun 2008, 15:44, closed)