Could we create the perfect world?

[billvon]

I think that generally, the only ways in which society can help it's citisens feel good are by laying down and enforcing plenty of non opressive legislation to protect these citizens

But what if one of those laws is "you can't poop on the sidewalk because it spreads disease" and you oppress people who feel that their freedom of expression is destroyed if they can't poop where they choose?

and changing the way the schooling system works so that the subjects taught there are not so effing useless

Which subjects taught today are "effing" useless?

Also, the schooling system should probably involve less work, more carefully designed, allowing more time to study the relevant subject in depth

Those are somewhat opposite goals. Work is required for learning. The deeper you go, the more work is required.

The teachers should also probably explain how things work instead of just that they do work. Any fool can know. The point is to understand.

That would seem to be the province of most teachers (science teachers especially.)

 

[C C]

It seems to me that nothing is out of reach for the human species as a whole, but that the way they use what they have is simply ridiculous [...]

The momentum of social customs, and the self-interests of traditional regulative structure and competing population groups, is not going to disappear. Radical exercises in reasoning, especially proposals outputted during the greenness of youth, are no match for that mighty impetus. And when, historically, they occasionally appear to have triumphed in some part of the world via...

Alan Pratt: "Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. "

... then that ensuing vacuum simply creates an opportunist bonanza for the very worst kinds sphincter-hood.

Which includes any intellectual class that fomented such a revolution briefly rising to power (their own manner of self-serving exploitation of oppressed classes or supposed oppressed groups), before its own submission to an ambitious tyrant or coterie within its ranks.

"Philosopher kings", despite their overrated general expertise on paper, often prove to be the bottom dregs of gullible and idealistic idiocy when wrestling with actual reality or the unreliable nature of experienced life.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The momentum of

intellect stretching her legs is as always a delight to read

 

[Write4U]

Carlin had an amusing perspective on owning stuff;

 

[Write4U]

I disagree but we may also define "happiness" differently. You can overload the serotonin receptors in the brain.

A condition known as being "more than happy"......

 

[RainbowSingularity]

It seems to me that nothing is out of reach for the human species as a whole, but that the way they use what they have is simply ridiculous, and if they only, just for a moment, used what they had in the right way, all of their laws and technology and knowledge, they could bring bliss to everyone without exception. This is a thread about the logistics of doing so, and any speculation on the matter is welcome.

not everyone thinks like that
the majority have been raised in a feudal resource war for their lifes

the entire global system is designed to create poverty & give their deaths & loss as a benefit to the rich.
this is the way the species has developed.

if humanity(the modern world as it is known) is to survive it must change
otherwise only small pockets of the worst will be left to carry on a culture of exactly the same thing

Climate change & running out of resources for the current population is going to bring that change
Either the global world moves to adapt or it will be forced to become the victim
however many society's profit from victims being defined as the loser of financial trade basic process
so poverty & suffering is hard wired into the current global system & cultures have enshrined that into their core identity as a culture & ideology.

Happiness isn't just about accumulating stuff. It requires constant maintenance in the form of mental programming. Also, people might want much more than physical stuff. For example, love, friends, romantic relationships, security, validation, travel, talents, etc.

money buys happiness
because the system is designed that way

For example, love, friends, romantic relationships, security,

all these require money

relationships & friends are built on class systems of financial wealth

you do not see low income people socializing with high income people
because most people see relationships to be a step ladder to wealth & a better quality of happiness.

so the system of happiness is a failed system
failed & supported by demanding wealth to enter the relationship/friendship/socialization

millennials kinda get it.. the brighter ones do
but the system is soo terribly bent to demand ever increasing loss for the same level of happiness & life quality essentials

at he other end
baby-boomers, all they know is material wealth is an absolute need to have happiness
material possessions become their happiness instead of relationships

some brighter baby boomers kinda get it
but they also know everyone is locked into that system
so its a life essential
& tee co-dependent destructive relationship rules life & death

probably sounds a bit grim
but thats the reality
its now coming harder & faster than anyone had imagined
only the more overt theorists have been close to being right & all the models are not geared properly to the exponential factor

how does 100 million people change their system to universal living wage & universal health care ?
how does a drug addict stop being a drug addict ?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

my biggest mistake is/was trusting people & trusting that they wont break their promise & screw me over for money & power(climbing the job ladder) & lying to me.

i am in serious shit & no one gives a fuck
not the government or their opposition or my family
i have 1 or 2 family members who might let me sleep on their floor if i drive 1000 or 2000 kilometers to their house
only thing that will solve that is money
that is how the system is designed

there is no other real option in the system which is global other than to scam scrape lie cheat & steal to make it those at the top are a very small %
unless you are lucky & have a unique skill set with high intelligence

the system is designed to create losers so the upper class can have more & more
greed is normalized as a basic need

there are very very very few professions that do not require super high grade born abilities that last a life time or even half a life time

all others must take what ever they can when they get the chance to take it(steal etc)

you can see the same game playing out in many different examples

house & apartment prices is an easy one

the need by those who control it
is to ensure there is never enough & the price is constantly just out of reach
& rent prices are at the absolute highest possible that they can charge to take from people wages.

that is normal
and considered ok

how is that mentality & culture going to solve climate change & the massive shortage in critical resources ?

they propose to solve it by applying even more greed & larger profit margins and creating more suffering.

sounds a bit depressing ?
how do you find happiness inside that reality ?
you destroy your empathy for people & create religions that give away accountability to some imaginary thing & blame it all on them.

the current biggest lie is upper middle class people claiming to be going green(& saying that their version of going green is the solution)
when the price of that green is well out of reach of the average worker

what they are saying in a very clear voice repeatedly is
the system is not broken so it doesn't need fixing
so what ever you change must not change the system

 

[sideshowbob]

Unanimity is out of reach.

Cults indicate the contrary.

What? A cult may have unanimity within a very small group but in no way does a cult represent unanimity within the context of "a perfect world". The fact that there are many cults that disagree with each other proves that.

I think that unanimity is not a requirement for happiness in most cases.

Again, you can't have a perfect world without some agreement on what "perfection" is.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

What? A cult may have unanimity within a very small group but in no way does a cult represent unanimity within the context of "a perfect world". The fact that there are many cults that disagree with each other proves that.

Again, you can't have a perfect world without some agreement on what "perfection" is.

Cults indicate the contrary. However, despite the implication, I think that unanimity is not a requirement for happiness in most cases.

additionally
for debating purposes
in a cult or any other pyramid context
is the group choosing all together
or being told what to choose ?

when it gets to a free will level of democracy & liberalism
who controls the options & possible optional outcomes ?

if people are pre-conditioned to only believe greed is what motivates & validates all human emotions
then they will always only choose that to be pro or con the basic outcome
& debate in that case is almost pointless until they have been de-programmed

true liberal freedom scares the shit out of most people

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

What? A cult may have unanimity within a very small group but in no way does a cult represent unanimity within the context of "a perfect world". The fact that there are many cults that disagree with each other proves that.

Again, you can't have a perfect world without some agreement on what "perfection" is.

The first paragraph is true except for the part about cults disagreeing with one another proving that no cult represents unanimity within a perfect world. it INDICATES this very strongly, but does not prove it. Anyway, the second paragraph is probably correct, but that not much unanimity is required, because people can just leave one another alone.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

The momentum of social customs, and the self-interests of traditional regulative structure and competing population groups, is not going to disappear. Radical exercises in reasoning, especially proposals outputted during the greenness of youth, are no match for that mighty impetus. And when, historically, they occasionally appear to have triumphed in some part of the world via...

Alan Pratt: "Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. "

... then that ensuing vacuum simply creates an opportunist bonanza for the very worst kinds sphincter-hood.

Okay, but I'm not a political nihilist despite what you may think. I think that there should be some social order, but only to protect people from being physically harmed by others when they can't do it themselves, and also to support them in getting what they want or need when they can't do that themselves.

I believe that it is true that reason alone rarely suffice's to convince large groups of anything. Fear would probably work there though. Appealing to their collective wants and needs might, especially if paired with reason.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Which includes any intellectual class that fomented such a revolution briefly rising to power (their own manner of self-serving exploitation of oppressed classes or supposed oppressed groups), before its own submission to an ambitious tyrant or coterie within its ranks.

"Philosopher kings", despite their overrated general expertise on paper, often prove to be the bottom dregs of gullible and idealistic idiocy when wrestling with actual reality or the unreliable nature of experienced life.

Well maybe everyone should be brain washed into leaving others the hell alone then.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Again, you can't have a perfect world without some agreement on what "perfection" is.

True. Only a small amount of it though.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Which subjects taught today are "effing" useless?

Generally: English, (Mostly just having to talk the same bs repeatedly using big fancy words,) art, (Mostly making metaphorical interpretations of things.) social studies, (Mostly just listening to the teacher rant about very little with too many words, in some kind of word salad.) psychology, (Hearing about how awful and pitiful people are without any proposed solutions.) Outdoor ed. PE. Hauora. (Being brain washed into compliance.) Health. (Talking about feelings, and sex, which people probably already know about by that age anyway.) Music. (I have seen very little music happen in this class. I also had to listen to my class mates sing and play, which hurt my ears because they were not very good at it. It was like some kind of torture chamber.) Occasionally: Maths. (Because these people will probably end up in scenario's where they don't need it at all.)

I'm not against meritocracy. I believe that it is a requirement to stop people from messing the world up. However, I just think that it would occur naturally anyway because if somebody is not very good at something, then they are not going to be hired for it, and in the rare cases in which somebody is hired to do something that they are rubbish at, they will be fired for being rubbish at it. As for the learning aspect, the internet seems to suffice for this.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

But what if one of those laws is "you can't poop on the sidewalk because it spreads disease" and you oppress people who feel that their freedom of expression is destroyed if they can't poop where they choose?

I mean, obviously law has to be a little bit oppressive to deal with scum like that, until we eliminate scum like that from the face of the earth by raising people to who don't want to do such things.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Those are somewhat opposite goals. Work is required for learning. The deeper you go, the more work is required.

Work is required for learning. They're not opposite goals though as far as I am aware because, as far as I am aware, there is way more work to be done at school than is required for learning, in almost any case, unless it is learning how to be a god damn slave that is.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

That would seem to be the province of most teachers (science teachers especially.)

Okay. Then they should probably find different jobs which allow them to teach properly.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

people can just leave one another alone.

i could write a thesis on this which would blow your mind
but i wont

the short answer is
most people cant leave other people alone
equally that people who wish to be left alone are not always best left alone regardless of what they purport to report of their supposed true feelings

celebrity politicians as an example
the type who want to ride in on the coat tails of some viral trend
but have never worked a day in public service their entire lifes

they cant leave others alone because they require the need to control others for self actuation

inserting the word "cult" is problematic because most people do not understand what motivates themself to choose any group or religion over any other that may or may not be a cult

[can you read the angry tone in my post? i expect so im a bit angry, but not at you or your comment]

here is a thought
how can anyone be emotionally honest to you(& thus honest at all) if they do not understand their own emotions ?

not much unanimity is required

any amount of unanimity as a group is a process of compromise
the false assumption is that democracy is a group consensus of all wanting exactly the same thing
that is part of the bigger problem

I think that there should be some social order, but only to protect people from being physically harmed by others when they can't do it themselves, and also to support them in getting what they want or need when they can't do that themselves.

& who decides when they qualify for that free money ?
free money is not user pays society
but most seek to define user pays society as the absolute best possible model

its a bit of an impasse
pretending to have a solution which is not actually a solution
& they run away from the debate as soon as that is questioned to how they will run that part
because they are power corrupted
so they only look to install corrupt models of power & authority which is un-answerable to the people whom they have power over to decide who gets food & who doesn't
and who gets medical care & who doesn't

I believe that it is true that reason alone rarely suffice's to convince large groups of anything.

you need to qualify that statement
because it has no foundation of logic or reason
so you must provide an example of the difference
otherwise your statement of opinion me

ans less than nothing
it is a jump to an assertion of control dynamics
which is programmed thinking models

Appealing to their collective wants and needs might, especially if paired with reason.

wants & needs have different drives & motivations & critical outcomes
the need for food & shelter & water & healthcare
cant be waived away to mean nothing like a want for a new cell phone
1 option = need = they die
2 option = want = they whine & complain

political spin programmed bi-partisan group think claims these to be equal paradigms of the same ideology
that is false

paired with reason

one must be capable of reason to work with reason as a tool & process
reason defining wants for new cell phones
reason defining needs for food & water

which one is the correct reasoning ?

Well maybe everyone should be brain washed into leaving others the hell alone then.

lol
yes ideally in a manner of speaking
but left alone to starve to death ?
left alone to die from injury ?
left alone to go crazy & be a mass killer because they have no public park to go to & get some free space to unwind ?

True. Only a small amount of it though.

i think you may be confusing self actuation with liberal freedoms
its a tricky subject
you need to discuss that with a professional psychologist
its fraught with Pitt falls & manipulation by many people
many claim to understand it
but they dont



fake liberals selling conservative classicist fascism as if its the only true god of democracy

eewww !

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

additionally
for debating purposes
in a cult or any other pyramid context
is the group choosing all together
or being told what to choose ?

It depends on the cult. Technically, philosophically speaking, Everyone chooses everything that happens to them for the following reasons: 1: any persons timeline must be finite or infinite. 2: One can not not have a perspective from one's own perspective, and therefore every self aware entities timeline is infinite. 3: If it takes an infinite amount of time to get to point a, then point a doesn't happen, because infinity is endless. 4: Therefore it must take only a finite amount of time for any entity to reach any point along their timeline. 5: The only way that this can happen on an infinite timeline if the infinite timeline is an infinitely recurring loop. 6: since every self aware entities timeline is an infinitely recurring loop of some kind or other, every moment on any self aware entities timeline leads to itself. 7: this makes any occurrence along any self aware entities timeline self perpetuating, which is the same as every bit of their mind being self perpetuating, Aka: decided upon, by them.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

i could write a thesis on this which would blow your mind
but i wont

the short answer is
most people cant leave other people alone
equally that people who wish to be left alone are not always best left alone regardless of what they purport to report of their supposed true feelings

celebrity politicians as an example
the type who want to ride in on the coat tails of some viral trend
but have never worked a day in public service their entire lifes

they cant leave others alone because they require the need to control others for self actuation

inserting the word "cult" is problematic because most people do not understand what motivates themself to choose any group or religion over any other that may or may not be a cult

[can you read the angry tone in my post? i expect so im a bit angry, but not at you or your comment]

It's understandable if you are angry about this. I'm sure that there are ways to force such people to change their views. I know the power of brainwashing. I already brain washed myself and I am working on learning how to do it to others in order to make the world a better place. I know that there is only one of me, so I am working on brainwashing others so that THEY brain wash others to be kind to others, and respectful of one an other's differences and liberties.
I thought I could read a bit of an angry tone. I think a lot of people just assume that I am socially retarded because of my directness, but I am not. The directness is out of principle, and will remain regardless of whether or not I realise that others do not like it.

[/QUOTE]