I'd like to ask everyone a dork question, and I'm sure many will think it's a dork question.

There are a lot of strong personalities that have left their opinions in this forum and I'm interested in their ideas on the following.

We have a world we will call 'New World'. It is a world just like ours and it suffers from the same ills as our world. There is crime, corruption, murder, perversion, and every other ill you can think of.

The people of 'New World' has decided to try and take control and put in a new government (or ruler), to try and solve their problems.

If you had the power, how would you set this New World up? Would there only be one religion? Would we tolerate those who do not believe in this religion? Would you allow many religions? Would you have free V. D. Clinics?

What about the law? Would you allow flea bargaining, reduced sentences, capital punishment. Would you allow equal rights to the minority groups, or homosexuals or a group that you don't see as being correct?

Address any issue that interests you, or that you feel strong about. I know some of you are big in science. Would you make science the primary way we viewed the world?

The only restriction is that this is a real world. It is strictly up to mankind to try to make it more livable. No wave of a magic stick is allowed.

This may be a dork question, but I often wonder what kind of world people wants. What do they think should be done about those they don't agree with or despise?

Zapper,

Would you allow flea bargaining

Flea bargaining - that's the kind of bargaining that occurs in a flea market, right? I think I would definitely allow that. :)

Searcher
Even with spell check I screw the language up. I guess I'll never be able to spell.
Good thing for you guys, I'd drive you all up walls with my rambeling.

Zapper,

If given the opportunity, I would use my "power" to spread the Word of God... I would probably devise a system to reach more people. Individuals would use still use their free-will to decide whether or not to accept the message or reject it. I would not "force" them to accept it and I would not impose any earthly punishment for rejecting the message.

If given the power, I would continue to allow exercise of our individual gift of "free will" so, not much else would change... Except, if it were up to me, many more basic "needs" would be made available "free of charge."

P.S... Great question! :)

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 19, 1999).]

Anarchy rules.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

You're okay, Zapper!

In my world, you would be allowed to believe whatever you please, but you would not be allowed to deprive others of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Education would be the main priority, and even convicts would be allowed a free education if they wanted it. But convicts would not be allowed to sit on their duffs in prison contemplating their next crime. There would be menial tasks they could perform under whatever level of security would be required. There would be no TV or internet for prisoners, but there would be plenty of books, magazines and newspapers, and even a little free time in which to read them.

There would be no plea bargaining - if you do the crime, you must do the time. There would be severe penalties for extremely violent crimes (i.e., rape, murder, torture, etc.) - with no possibility of parole - ever. I would probably reserve the death penalty for violent crimes against children, but in any case all sentences would be swiftly executed.

Well, I may continue this tomorrow, but I'm outta here for now.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

i'm with you on the spell thing zapper

------------------
dexter

Lori
Believe it or not I do respect your right to have a opinion. thats different from mine. .
Both of us would probably end up in jail if we got near each other for screaming, hollering and trying to kill each other, but
I still strongly believe you have the right to your belief and I am open to new ideas and proofs you come up with that are different from my beliefs. .
I’ll probably continue to dig at you and be a pain the ‘a’ double ‘s’, but it’s not personal. Its just bad manners and a strong belief I 'm right..............

This discussion reminds me of a song by Five Iron Frenzy.

My evil plan to save the world.

I have an evil plan to save the world for every man,
And I think it's better than the way it's being run.
Oh, the groundwork's laid,
No, don't be afraid,
I'm sure that I can fix it,
When I figure out the physics.

Chorus
My evil plan to save the world,
Just you wait 'till it's unfirled,
it'll go down in history.
It's prophetic,
No, it's not pathetic.
I can't believe I made it up myself.

I have an evil plan,
to save the world you understand,
The exemplary feat, you'd think I'd have to cheat.
I'd make Voltaire proud,
Deep and furrow browed.
Uncanny, and so clever, it's 'Our Newest Plan Ever!'

Bridge
Got tired of whining,
A grander scheme with silver lining,
For every boy and girl,
We can't be responsible,
For all that's wrong with this world.

Chorus
My evil plan to save the world,
Just you wait 'till it's unfirled,
it'll go down in history.
It's prophetic,
No, it's not pathetic.
I can't believe I made it up myself.

Starving children in pain
You can't believe in that God.
The world's not spinning your way,
Does every dog still get his day?

Chorus

That song sounds awesome and has great lyrics, but they are a little hard to understand. The lyrics were explained on the album:

"I know this song is kind of hard to understand, So without spoon-feeding you answers, it's about anyone that loses their objectivity to their human nature. It's about all of us that have ever thought that our small minds could come up with a plan greater and more perfect than God's."

One thing we should keep in mind is that the world was a little different before the 'fall.'

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Zapper,

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! New World, stop scaring me to death!! Sounds too much like a a "New World Order". I know I definitely would not allow the UN to run it!

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

My main focus would be on education. The more intelligent people are, the more likely they will able to govern themselves. Human nature being what it is, however, there are bound to be some bad apples in the bunch.

Since we are rebuilding a corrupt world in this scenario and not starting from scratch, my first step would be to educate the children, beginning in kindergarten if not sooner. I would have them taught early on that other people, even drastically different people, are endowed with the "inalienable rights" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The importance of respecting these rights and not using them to encroach on another's rights would be stressed.

Although children will be children, a teacher who was trained to watch for behavior patterns inconsistent with such respect should be able to spot the ones who just can't get along with others. Perhaps a note would be made in the child's records and, as the child progresses through school, subsequent teachers would monitor the child's progress to see if he or she improves. In the meantime, standard corrective measures might be taken; telling the child to stop, explanations of what was done wrong, minor sit-in-the-corner type punishments, etc. If, through such procedures, the child does not show improvement by 5th grade or around age 10, the child's behavior would be analyzed by psychiatrists who would then determine, after a lengthy interview with the parents, whether or not preventative measures should be taken.

If the child's home environment proves to be the cause for such unacceptable behavior, steps would then be taken to improve the home life. It is possible that the parent or parents of such a child are simply under a hardship and cannot provide the guidance for the child that they would like to. If the parents are simply unwilling to raise the child, remove the child from the environment, have him or her placed in a school engineered to handle such cases, and press charges of child neglect against the parents.

I imagine the resistance to such a measure would be pretty heavy, but if the special schools are stricter without being like a boot-camp, we might be able to salvage an otherwise wasted life. I believe the ends, in this case, would justify the means.

Naturally, some children simply wouldn't adjust. Even if the government provided them with jobs suitable to their particular talents upon reaching adulthood, there are those who are bound to go bad. That's why laws and government would still be necessary. Laws would be strictly and unprejudicially enforced. Those who could be rehabilitated would be, those who couldn't would be either placed in heavily monitored institutional labor (with further attempts to let them correct themselves) or (if their crime was severe enough) put to death.

As a government, I'd favor a limited democracy. Anybody of legal age for a particular post would be allowed to run, but only after passing a skills test that has nothing to do with their pocketbook. Special interest groups would allowed based on their merit. I don't want people bogging down the democratic process with frivolous lobbying. I'd try to abolish political parties due to their tendencies to adhere to their platforms more than to common sense. ("Health care reform? Well, if a Democrat wrote it, then I have the duty as a Republican to vote it down, regardless of how much good it would do the people!")

Any religion would be allowed provided that it respected the rights of others. Religions that practiced such things as not allowing medical attention to their members would have to be respected, much as I might not like it. (Ultimately, in this case, if the potential patient asked for help, child or not, it would then be administered regardless of the religious wishes of the group. The individual has the final say over the fate of his or her soul.)

I would have to include health care as a duty of the government. Hospitals would be given a very high priority as to their funding and upkeep, and the requirements for quality and sanitiation would be strictly enforced.

If I am running an entire planet, military funding would be moderate. If I am running only a country, I would want my military to be the finest. This would include high pay, high prestige, and high-quality training. Drafts would be imposed only in wartime and only if necessary.

Scientific progress would not be hindered, although if this New World were at our current technological level I would attempt to ban the use of animals as test subjects. I personally believe this is an unnecessary cruelty, but I would have to be convinced that such practices were indeed necessary in order to develop better medicines, etc. Cosmetic testing is absolutely out. There's no reason for a rabbit to be tortured just so Tammy Faye Baker can put on another 5 pounds of rouge.

Space exploration would hold a high priority.

Abortion would have to be decided, expediently, on a case by case basis. Hopefully, within a generation or two, the people will be sufficiently educated that they will prevent unwanted pregnancies by various birth-control methods (because you can't enforce abstinence). Then we could focus more clearly on cases of rape, incest, and pregnancies that jeopardize the life of the mother.

Free enterprise would be encouraged. I would give tax breaks to people who were starting their own businesses. I would also tend to keep economies local instead of global. The problem with a global economy is that if a monsoon hits and wipes out one area, all economies will feel it. By localization with a minimum restriction on international trading, the whole ship doesn't go down just because one leak popped up. It would be the duty of the planetary government to alocate funds and other assistance to help the damaged area.

There are plenty of details I'm sure I left out. No one person can hope to have all of the answers, and I'm sure mine are flawed as badly as the next persons (although I liked Searcher's treatment of convicts very much). It's just so hard to think of these things before my first cup of coffee. You know, instead of "a chicken in every pot" it comes out more like "a little pot for every chicken". :)

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited November 20, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited November 20, 1999).]

This is kind of a fantasy question isn't it? My answer is kind of the way I see reality though in any case, in any society, or under any rule. By that I mean that we are all ultimately responsible for ourselves and the decisions that we make regarless of the laws of the land. You can imagine an ideal state, which I do all the time, and I really wish I'd stop doing that, as it makes me rather cynical, but you can never really control the decisions that others make around you. You can try to, or try to deal with the consequences of them if you have the power to, but the ideal will always be lost. That is the way I view the laws of God. As an ideal state of existence on this earth. This is what God originally created, and the state in which Adam and Eve were living before the fall. Somehow we were tempted, and agreed to be changed, to know evil. To know of a different way other than this ideal state which God had created in His perfection. We second guessed Him. Well, we're living in it right now. Who thinks we made the right choice? I don't. I think that what happened to Adam and Eve in the garden was a genetic change that was perpetuated by a being of light (Satan) and that allowed his greater influence on us. I also think that the mark of the beast may likely be a genetic change. The agreement for this alteration is literally a deal with the devil, only he will say that it is necessary to withstand and survive the dimensional evolution which will change the planet and ourselves for the better. This dimensional evolution is really the wrath of God. What do you guys think about that? AND BE NICE. :)

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Just to let you know ‘Zapper’ and ‘Zappers’ are the same person. For
some reason they won’t let me in here with the same name/password at
home that I use from work.
The reason I posted this question was so we could see where each other
was coming from. Sometimes we make statements that sound scary and
dangerous because we don’t explain ourselves.
If I say ‘we should eliminate all opposition to free speech’ then you might think I was suggesting we kill all people who don’t support free speech. Maybe I was or maybe I had something else in mind.
Anyway I’ll post my view of the New World. I wish my spelling and writing
skill were better so I could be more clear, but they’re not and I have to work with
what I have at hand.

First I would work on food being available to all peoples assuming
we can produce the food needed to feed the World.
Population control would be put into place. If you want ten kids then you pay for it. No tax breaks will be allowed and if you can’t feed or care for them they will be put up for adoption unless this is only temporary. Then you would be given some food, clothing, and health care aid.
The issue about abortion would have to be resolved in some way. Maybe
I would allow abortion for up to two months, or in cases of rape, etc. maybe more time would be allowed From that point on it would be carried full term. In cases of health problems then it would have to be reviewed by a board with a clear outline of the how things are to be handled that is up front and that everyone understands.
All religions are welcome. Only the ones that are harmful to others will not
be tolerated. Sacrifice of animals would not be allowed.
The Law would the same for all. There would be no special place for people
who commit white collar crimes. They would be sent to the same place some guy trying to feed himself is sent. No one would be above law.
Equal rights for all would be a must. No group would be singled out
because I don’t understand them. This does not mean rapists, child molesters,
and people who cannot be trusted in society.
Equal employment is a must also. The same here as said in the previous statement.
Housing would be available to everyone who will take care of it. If you
cannot take care of it for valid reasons
then you would be given help.
Medical research would be encouraged.
Science research would be encouraged.
At some point when things are in place a democratic government would be set
up.
Then in twenty years when things are going to hell again it could start all over
again with a new dictator.
I’m leaving a lot out, I could go on and on. This is simply to let you know where I am coming from. This lets you know how
far right or left, or crazy I am.
So far theres some good stuff here.

Zapper -

Here is what I would do:

First, I would assemble a group of people that are representative of the population of the New World. My criteria in selection would be intelligence, morality, and responsibility. I would attempt to include as many diverse viewpoints as it would take to represent society. Yes, I'd even include YOU, Lori :)

Then, once I had this great group of people assembled, I'd dump the whole thing in their laps, retire, and continue with my life. Or, perhaps, I would sit on the council as well. Either way, I don't have any way to know that my judgement is better or superior to the next person's. Nor do I think I have the right to dictate societal standards to a group of people without their universal and eternal agreement.

Simply my opinion, comments are welcome.

FyreStar

It would be nice to have a more global view, and a little more fairness on this planet. I guess if I had a 'second Earth' and it was up to me, I'd have to at least try to make a difference. I think the first place to start would be to bring developing nations up to speed with the rest of the world. I would like to eliminate starvation everywhere. I still have a hard time when I re-realize there are little children right here in California that don't have food in their bellies. Those stories of the lucky little girl that was given a box of fruit and it makes her Christmas just make me ill. So that would be a huge priority for me - feed the hungry, clothe the naked, educate the undertrodden. I'd love to be able to elimitate poverty and slums.

I'd decriminalize a lot of the junk that's illegal these days in favor of regulation and assistance. What's the point of locking up a heroin junkie for 10 years when you could offer them help instead? Locking them up doesn't help them any, and just makes the prisons so overcrowded murderers are getting out early. I'd have to base all the laws on the "does it really hurt anyone" basis. Actions between consenting adults are irrelevant to the law, in my "Utopia". This includes things like drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, any kind of religious practice... as long as all parties are in agreement there is no need for any kind of intervention. Police force would be reserved for protecting the public, not punishing them. On the strict side - murder and rape, violent crimes of all types would be very strictly enforced. I don't really think the death sentence is a good idea, much as I'd like to fry some of these convicts. I think there's rehabilitation for a lot of them, and for others, a lifetime behind bars would have to suffice. And I'd have to rob a lot of the privileges these inmates get - no cable, no TV, none of that stuff. Educate them, rehabilitate them, but keep them locked up until they're whole people again.

All drugs would have to be government regulated in my world. This includes tobacco, alchohol, pharmecuticals, marijuana, cocaine, etc. Laws regarding sales to minors would be very strict. Profits made by the sale of the drugs would be specifically earmarked for assistance programs and education. My logic behind this - if they're going to take the drugs anyway they might as well not have to commit crimes to get them, and the drugs will be accurate doses, no poisons or drain cleaners included. Less drug overdoses, no crime, no shame, and easy to access help when you decide to kick your particular beast.

Education would absolutely be a priority. Free public education all the way through a bachelor's degree. Gifted programs for the little prodigies, regardless of their income level. Remedial programs for those that require them. Trade schools designed for the non-college bound to teach things like auto repair, construction, and the like. Tax breaks to businesses that foster work-intern programs that mesh with the school systems. State-of-the-art schools as far as the eye can see.

Politics would have to be much cleaner and more honest. None of this special-interest, campain contribution/bribery crapola. By the people, of the people, for the people would become a reality rather than a catch phrase. Big business would have to do more than show a big profit. The only kind of kick back business would get from me would be in exchange for humanitarian projects - starting day care for their worker's children, offering extensive benefits, donating to charities... Government would help create and facilitate these kinds of programs.

Okay, I'd better get back to work. I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but there's the main stuff, I think. :)

So far, I see a lot of great ideas! One thing I think is important, which I didn't mention before, is that Governmental control over the people would be limited, and all laws and regulations would pretty much be geared toward protecting everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

SkyeBlue - so you're a California girl, too? If you don't mind me asking, what part of California are you from? I live just south of Sacramento, myself.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Just got one question to you people.

"....Education.."

Who will decide what's being taught? Think about it. That's dangerous territory.

I belive knowledge is subjective before it becomes collective.

What i would try to do is to replace the concept of money. But for that, i would need a little help. :)

Good question :)


*forgive my English, i am still Norwegian*

"If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't have called it research"

H-kon,

I don't think my curriculum would be too controversial - I would maintain separation of church and state, and require that all children master the basic subjects (i.e., reading, writing, science, mathematics, history, geography). They would also be introduced to art, music and physical education from the time they enter Kindergarten.

Once the child reaches high school level, they would be able to take a few elective courses, which would include art, music, humanities, etc. In other words, I would keep it pretty much the same as it is in the U.S. today - except that I would require a higher level of mastery of the academic subjects than what is required in U.S. schools today.

Also, one world - one language, and since my first language is English and I'm the one in charge - English it is! :) Actually, there are plenty of reasons for choosing English as the primary language that everyone must know - it's already more or less that way now.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher -

Yuh, I'm a Cali. girl. I used to live near Sacto, too. Nowadays my abode is in the North Bay - near the vineyards. Bleh, I hated Sacramento, it's too darn hot in the summer!!

Back to the topic...

I don't think I'd really put much limits on what's taught in the schools, other than to create (and actully enforce!) minimum standards. I think perhaps different schools would have different areas of specialty. Trade schools would focus on their particular industries, of course. Schools for the college-bound would focus heavily on acedemia, schools designed for the little geniuses out there would focus on creative thinking skills and more abstract theories (after mastering basic curriculum, of course). After grade 12 I think I'd put JC & regular universities together, but scatter the campuses a little farther apart. Encourage tele-education - over the internet to reach more people. Fund the schools to the point where student assistance can help anyone purchase the PC they would need to get the education.

I am a strong believer of free speach, and free thought is an extension of that basic right. I don't think I'd ever tell a school they couldn't teach a certain subject. Well, I guess I would have some limits - I wouldn't want "KKK Elementary" to spring up or something. I think I'd take more of a "whole enchilada" direction with the education - if you present material to the kids with a certain slant to it (for example teaching creationism) you must spend an equal amount of time teaching the other ideals (darwinism) and let the children choose for themselves what they think is the right answer. Theories could be taught, as long as it is emphasized it's a THEORY and not proven fact.

Another great thing - if it's a 'whole world government' there's no need to keep secrets anymore. I would mandate the government to keep open books for the public to view - everything would belong to the people of the world, not to the officials. No more cover-ups, no more 'blue book' projects... No need for it anymore! Peace would reign.

Something else I didn't touch on - environment! No more rainforest destruction! No more polluting the seas! If the whole world is the same 'country', free trade should help spread resources evenly and hopefully we can cut way back on how much of the Earth's treasures we dig up, mine out, pump out, etc.

I think in my 'Utopia', environmentalists and educators would be the new role models, instead of sports figures and Poke'mons. :)

Any takers? My colony ship is ready to roll! :)

Skyeblue,
I like your Utopia, where is your ship parked? let me enter your vessel!

It's parked on the dark side of the moon. ;)

Heh, heh, here's another one for my Utopia - nobody is allowed to utter the sylables "y2k" in sequence for at least 5 years. (Can you tell I work in IT?)

The phrase "Separation of church and state" is widely misused and taken out of context. I give it the thumbs down. Most people don't even know what it really means or where it came from. It had nothing to do with the state being "separate" from the church."

found at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1601/jeff-1st.html
The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802. This was not a government document or public policy paper, but a personal, private letter. Jefferson's letter was written in response to an earlier letter from the Danbury Baptist Church. In that letter, written November 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptists voiced to President Jefferson their concerns about the First Amendment:

"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific.... [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights."

The Danbury Baptists were concerned that Constitutional protection provided by the First Amendment suggested that the "free excercise of religion" was a government-given privilege rather than a God-given right, and as such, the government might someday choose to revoke that privilege.

Jefferson understood their concerns, and also felt strongly that the government should not be permitted to regulate, restrict or interfere with the free excercise of religious expression. In response to the Danbury Baptists' letter, he wrote back, assuring them that they did not need to worry; that the free excercise of religion would never be interfered with by the government:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise therof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurance of my high respect and esteem."

"Test everything. Hold on to the good."

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Vinnie,

You give separation of church and state the "thumbs down"? Are you saying that you believe that the government should regulate, restrict or otherwise interfere with the free excercise of religious expression, extending beyond punishing the "man who works ill to his neighbor"?

I see no problem or conflict with my own feelings regarding separation of church and state. I maintain that it is a good thing, even a necessary thing in my world.

Please clarify for me what your feelings are regarding separation of church and state, as I am extremely confused! If you feel that the "free excercise of religion" should be a government-given privilege rather than a God-given right - I sure don't want to live under your rule, Vinnie!

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

[Are you saying that you believe that the government should regulate, restrict or otherwise interfere with the free excercise of religious expression, extending beyond punishing the "man who works ill to his neighbor"?]

No I am not.

[I sure don't want to live under your rule, Vinnie!]

I'm not God so you don't have to. Nor do I set myself up as God imagining a world in which I had control and how great it would be. No matter what you do it will not be perfect unless there aren't any humans. We screw everything up. Instead of blaspemying and making up some fairy tale, lala, poofy poof world in which we make things all nice and fluffy we could get off our buts and change this one. The future is in our hands. I posted this somewhere, it might have been in this thread, but I'll post it again.

[Two fellows are talking religion. One says to the other, "Sometimes I'd like to ask God why he allows poverty, famine and injustice when he could do something about it."

"What's stopping you?" asks the second.

And the first replies, "I'm afraid God might ask me the same question."]

[Please clarify for me what your feelings are regarding separation of church and state,]

Sorry, I didn't exactly specify what I was talking about in my previous post. I gave the misused, colloquialized "separation of church and state" the thumbs down. As for Jefferson's intended meaning, I give it the thumbs up. To each his own. I believe Paul mentioned something about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Your free to worshop in any manner you choose.

But I do give this topic the thumbs down. Saying God isn't doing things properly and we can fix it or make it better is blaspemy and setting ourselves up as God. This reminds me of Job.

Look at the story of Job in the Bible. This is the best answer we have to the problem of pain and suffering. 'Job lost his family to "a mighty wind," his wealth to war and fire, and his health to painful boils. Through it all, God never told Job why it was happening. As Job endured the accusations of his friends, heaven remained silent. When God finally did speak Neither did the Lord apologize for allowing Satan to test Job's devotion to God. Instead, God talked about mountain goats giving birth, young lions on the hunt, and ravens in the nest. He cited the behavior of the ostrich, the strength of the ox, and the stride of the horse. He cited the wonders of the heavens, the marvels of the sea, and the cycle of the seasons. Job was left to conclude that if God had the power and wisdom to create this physical universe, there was reason to trust that same God in times of suffering.' Try reading Romans 9:17-23. God's wisdom is far superior to ours. We may not always understand his ways (Isaiah 55:8) but somehow God manages to work all things for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28). God may not always seem fair to us. Some of us may think God isn't doing things right but who can judge God?

Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

SkyeBlue - Lemme know when the ships leaving town :)

Education would have been free for all in my world, no matter how long you wanted to go, and nothing would have been hidden. Just have to balance it, and let the people decide for themselves. That's my opinion. A goal would be to build high bandwith connections all over the world no matter where they lived. At least one computer on every desk in the world, or in every familly. Internet would also be free to use for everyone in the world.

Religion would be seperated from the state in my world. People would have to chose that too if they wanted religion, and that doesn't mean that the gov is higher than God. It only means that people have the right to chose without someone pointing in one direction.

I would also create projects to clean the sea, rebuild the forrests, and clean the freshwater. A goal where everyone would have fresh clean water, and fresh food. I would also build a huge defense system incase a rock decided to land on earth.

So many things.. so little time..

Vinnie -

I'd like to just point out one thing - not all of us here in this forum believe in your God. Even for those that do, I don't think it's blasphemous to try to imagine a better world. Where did you get the idea we were saying God isn't doing a good job? I think the main theme here is that WE screwed up our world, and wouldn't it be nice if we could start over. I haven't seen anyone here post something lame like "there'd be statues of me everywhere, and I'd be worshipped as God" or something.

H-Kon, Tablariddim, you two have reservations! Would that be for a window seat, or do you prefer the aisle? :)

Skyblue,
anywhere, as long as I'm sittin' next teya!

-ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE LOVE LOVE-
-LOVE IS ALL YOU NEED-

After all of the respones I have a questions of my own to present. After creating your new world how would you maintain it? Goverments don't last for ever. There is allways someone who thinks he has a better idea then the one who is running the place. Than there are those who hell bent on controll and have no good intentions.

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born


[This message has been edited by 666 (edited November 27, 1999).]

666,
very true, but because this 'Utopia' would be based on more spiritual ethics, it would be more difficult for deranged power hungry individuals to gain a following.

666 raises an important point. We could start off with a new "Utopia" but we would destroy it just as surely as we have destroyed our current globe.

It's interesting what happens to people once there is a group of us. You can take individuals that are geniuses, poets, nature lovers, generous and kind. Put those same people in a large group and the undercurrents of greed, lust, hate, anger all begin to take over, unless you are extremely careful. There is no way to keep this new Utopia the way you want it without stealing individuality from the inhabitants.

If I had a new world to start all over with, I duuno, mabye it'd be better if I DIDN'T put humans on it. I think maybe the world would have been better off without us. Use the new globe as sanctuary for all the beasts and plant life we are endagering with our foolishness and greed, and let them find their own destiny. They probably deserve a new planet more than we do.

Guess I'd better tear up the ticket then.

Welllll...maybe just a few humans ;).

Of course, *I* would be allowed, and since Tab' and H-Kon already have their tickets...

There you go, a few people and lots of land mass for peace and quiet.
Oh heck, we could get along and live near each other, don't ya think............. ?

I didn't mean to rip you form the warm fuzzy side of this thread. I just belive it is important for people to see the biger picture. Is banning all humans from this new planet the right answer? I don't think so. I belive we could learn a better leason if we look at how many good things people do. Should we let Hitler or Stalin generlize or view of humanity? In fact we can learn a lot from the situation Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants have created. Next time you read about the holocaust don't focus on the murders but the things people did to help one another that happened to be in the same situation. Just thought I would throught this out there.

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born


[This message has been edited by 666 (edited November 30, 1999).]

Humans are basically good, but it is greed and a need for power which funks them up.The human condition is an establishment of various survival mechanisms which are difficult to balance in a complicated world. On the one hand the individual has an instinct to survive and gain the upper hand and on the other he has an instinct to help his fellow humans and his environment. The problem is that we do too much of the first and not enough of the other.

Hi Guys
Sorry, but I didn't intend for this to be taken seriously. I was simply interested in your view of a better World (not perfect by any means). As has been pointed out 'man/women' simply cannot handle power, nor does 'man/women' have the knowledge needed for such a task.
Sometimes when reading what has been posted on the forum I wonder what people are trying to say. Many times it sounds like they think the solution is to rid the world of all "wrong people/thinkers" when in fact they mean something else.
For example I misunderstood Lori (sorry Lori). I was under the impression she wanted a world only with people who were of her way of thinking. But if you read her post here under 'New World she says something quite different.
So anyway don't take this seriously. I think most of the people who are posting here realize that this wasn't intended to be for taken seriously.

Whether or not it is intended to be taken seriously, it's a good topic. A lot of people complain about what's wrong with the world, but if you ask them what should be done about it, their faces go blank and they go back to watching TV. They have no answers. Here, at least, we have seen answers. We have no way to know if they are the "right" answers or the "wrong" answers, but they are answers nonetheless, which is more than most people can offer. I am glad the question was asked.