World Domination

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Arkonos, Jul 20, 2011.

  1. Arkonos Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    Recently I have been contemplating world domination. Not so much for myself to attempt it but to attempt understanding the reasons that may be the drive for those who would attempt such a thing. So far I have found that the only reason for anyone to logically contemplate world domination, most likely with unavoidable demise of many, is to the end in which the greater or the "deserving" are benefited.

    Benefited how you may ask? Well, to you I would say that those who have done the dominating would seek to benefit the many/"the deserving" by making there lives more enjoyable. As we may not know the meaning of life for certain, I do believe it is fair enough to ascertain that happiness, if not joy, is a commendable goal or meaning to give to existence and thus those who have dominated the world successfully would look to please themselves and those whom they undoubtedly serve, which would be the many or the "deserving".

    That is then to say that anybody wishing to dominate the world does not do it for anything that can be valued with comprehension or valued less than to the highest possible value anything could be given. By that I mean that somebody wishing to dominate the world would not wish to because they are poor nor because they wish to control everything or kill people. Money is only valuable to those who hold value to it, so therefore when one has all of the money in the world it then becomes worthless or the goal itself becomes complete and has thus ignored entirely the value of the currency, but the value of the object as a symbol of value. Furthermore, what does the man with all the money then need the money for? He does not require anything but the essentials and surely he has far more than he requires even to secure the maximum amount of joy or happiness that is attainable from material objects.

    On controlling people, what does one gain in that regard? It brings to mind the problem of omnipotence in that an omnipotent entity would be bored out of their mind as nothing within their comprehension, which is boundless, is impossible and thus what goal would they strive for? What meaning of "life" would they have? So, despite the dominator most likely not being immortal all powerful, it still suggests that to control everyone is a flawed plan as is killing everyone, because like the problem of possessing all of the money in the world, to kill everyone in the world would bring the goal to a close when the last person died and then the only joy that I can see that could be attained would be that of having rid the world of the bacteria that is the human race. Now, I do find that it is plausible that one may decide that the death of all humans is the best for the Earth, but in saying that it is the Earth that is found to be the "deserving", and has been given the highest of all value that can be given to anything as it is being protected and served as best that can be comprehended, so therefore if one was to kill all of the human beings in the world for the good of the Earth then that line of thought would follow the same as the religious man who kills or converts every last human being for the thought that those who are followers would be lead to heaven or an equivalent place to live out the rest of eternity in joy and happiness.

    Is it that I am flawed in my thinking or is the only logical reason for world domination simply for the greater good?

    Also, I have yet to address the issue of the mentally ill or obscured of the mind, who wish to take dominion over all. To this issue I would say that a man afflicted with madness who happens to acquire all the money in the world may well have everything in existence replaced with an enormous variety of chairs made by the slaves that are the human race of which he controls, then may kill everyone so that he may wonder the world of chairs until his death.

    This may seem as though he has done it for selfish reason that follow no logic but let us examine this closely. In all aspects of his plan, he works towards bringing happiness and joy to the "deserving", which to him is himself and thus the death of all and the replacement of the Earths aesthetics with a variety of chairs is then in the best interest of the "deserving" and thus is for the greater good, according the the mad man.



    Having now read this, can anybody help me to find another reason for it or perhaps add to what I have already written?





    Also, killing people, controlling people and acquiring ridiculous amounts of money can be done without world domination, while bringing joy to the many is also possible without such drastic manoeuvre, it may occur that to bring about a certain plan to acquire joy for the many or "deserving" is only achievable through total domination, which may, as a means, include the death of many, the manipulation and controlling of many and the sources of funds and resources that may look to be in the grossest of multitudes.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,068
    I could take over the world. The knowledge to do so is out there.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - John Dalberg-Acton
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    If anyone would be in "control" of the world they would have billions of people who would not like what they do for one reason or another and therefore have to be watching over their shoulders at every minute of the day for an assassination attempt on themselves and their families. I wouldn't think anyone would want to have to have that kind of worry all of the time no matter how much they control.
     
  8. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,068
    If this is true, then life is useless. But, it may be true. Peaceful Anarchy is the answer.
     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Why would life be useless if there was no "one" world leader?:shrug:

    The way the world works today with many leaders having power and control over a few people where they live is working just fine. Those leaders get together every so often and talk about things that they all need to do in order to work together on many problems and ideas to help each other. What do you find so wrong with what we have now and why would anarchy be of any real help if you say we need one leader to lead everyone . You contradict yourself.:bugeye:
     
  10. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware.
    Next comes one whom they love and praise.
    Next comes one whom they fear.
    Next comes one whom they despise and defy.

    When you are lacking in faith,
    Others will be unfaithful to you.

    The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words.
    When his task is accomplished and things have been completed,
    All the people say, "We ourselves have achieved it!"

    -tao te ching

    No single human can do even an adequate job of dictatorship in even a small country, let alone the world. Too many facts to get straight.

    ( Pinky and the Brain+ the Tao Te Ching in one post=full of win

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  11. Hesperado Don't immanentize the eschaton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    177
    To the OP:

    The problem is one of multiple Absolute Meanings of Life.

    The modern West has already resolved this problem, with the development of modern secularism.

    While the problem has been resolved in the realm of political science, that doesn't mean there still don't exist individuals and groups (some of them quite large and broadly dispersed geographically) who continue to try to pursue an ancien régime of the need to actualize a politically forced Absolute Meaning of Life. To the extent that their pursuits begin to impinge upon societal order (particularly through violence), they of course must be stopped. However, we have complications in this regard, with the dominant and mainstream paradigm of PC MC that has in the meanwhile evolved throughout the modern West, which tends to irrationally minimize attention to certain data that are pertinent to maintaining the hard-won realization of modern secularism. I trust that over time, reason will prevail; though it seems it will take an inordinate period of time for that to occur. This wouldn't be the first time in history when productive progress will have been hindered -- though it might be the first time in history when it will have been hindered through precisely the same framework by which that progress evolved. A singular and exquisitely ironic paradox in history.
     

Share This Page