We can fix this World

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

World Federation would not be same with EU. There will be a shift in people's perception. Today you can be first World country and not be part of EU and it is totally normal. But if every First World City-states is part of the decentralized World Federation, you -as a city-state- can still decide not being a part of it but you will be considered as a 2nd World. No-one wants that.

You have no way of knowing there would be a shift in perception or to what degree. 

6 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

Some people still might cling to their "nationalism", you are right, but they will be a very small minority.

ISIS is a small minority yet look at all they chaos they create.

7 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

I didnt do a good job explaining myself. When the Union, the World Federation gets strong enough, it will turn its glace countries like Iran. So, if Iran turns into a city-state federation and is ruled with direct democracy but doesnt want to be with "devil westerns", we have to respect that. But if the Molla wants to keep their rejim and no direct democracy no city-states, good old Iran, than the Union should use whatever within its power to stop the oligarchs.

So every country must choose to participate? If so than it could already exist now yet doesn't. That sort of proves countries would not choose to participate. 

7 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

I agree but do you know that Apples 250.000.000.000 dollars is out of USA because they dont want to pay taxes? So, this problem will be aliminated, i think. And i do think, if the governments were not this curropted, they would have more difficult time stealing our money.

Apple already announced it will pay 38, 000, 0000, 0000 in taxes and bring that money back. Additionally if a country like Iran can just choose not to participate what stops them from becoming a place companies store their money to avoid federation taxes?

7 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

But they wont have the power they have today. People will have the power.

 Whomever is best able to solicit the largest audience would have the power. 

[Area54]

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 Whomever is best able to solicit the largest audience would have the power. 

You mean we shall be ruled by pornographers?

[MigL]

Italy, from medieval times until unification in the 1800s, was composed of a large number of city states.
They hired mercenary armies and fought against each other incessantly, ruling families rose to power through corruption and scheming ( read N Machiavelli, "the Prince' ).

Certainly not the utopia you envision.

[BahadirArici]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Italy, from medieval times until unification in the 1800s, was composed of a large number of city states.
They hired mercenary armies and fought against each other incessantly, ruling families rose to power through corruption and scheming ( read N Machiavelli, "the Prince' ).

Certainly not the utopia you envision.

We are not going to have the same thing of the past. They were barbarians for gods sake. They even had 2 World War. Can you imagine a 3rd one?

[MigL]

Barbarians ?

You think people have changed ?

[BahadirArici]

Just now, MigL said:

Barbarians ?

You think people have changed ?

But of course. Not only technologically but also culturally and socially we are evolving. We are better and will be better by time.

[MigL]

Really ?
People are still being beheaded and stoned to death in certain parts of the world.
Genocides have occurred in relatively advanced countries like Yugoslavia ( former ).
Women ( and daughters ) are chattel to be used for furthering your economic status.
Your skin color still determines your status in life.

I could go on all day...

[BahadirArici]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Really ?
People are still being beheaded and stoned to death in certain parts of the world.
Genocides have occurred in relatively advanced countries like Yugoslavia ( former ).
Women ( and daughters ) are chattel to be used for furthering your economic status.
Your skin color still determines your status in life.

I could go on all day...

yea you are right. we should do better

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

yea you are right. we should do better

"Money is the root of all evil" is a popular saying but hardly true. Humans have been killing each others since long before a monetary system existed. Megalomania is an evolutionary trait humans need to shed. The assertion of power and dominance works well for Wolves and Lions and Humans once upon a time. Today we exist in artificially large populations and cooperation is critical. Alpha behavior is holding us back. 

[Area54]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Really ?
People are still being beheaded and stoned to death in certain parts of the world.
Genocides have occurred in relatively advanced countries like Yugoslavia ( former ).
Women ( and daughters ) are chattel to be used for furthering your economic status.
Your skin color still determines your status in life.

I could go on all day...

Yes, to a slowly increasing extent, really.

We have moved to a time when beheading and stoning to death are looked on unfavourably by the majority of the population, unlike the past.

Nations work together to halt, or minimise at least some genocides and seek punishment for those involved afterwards.

The status of women, at least in the West, is finally approaching a measure of equality.

The US had a black president. The mayor of London is an ethnic Pakistani.

I could go on all day...

 

Just because we are not there yet is no reason to ignore the progress that has been made. Just as having made that progress is no reason to ignore how far we still have to go.

[BahadirArici]

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

"Money is the root of all evil" is a popular saying but hardly true. Humans have been killing each others since long before a monetary system existed. Megalomania is an evolutionary trait humans need to shed. The assertion of power and dominance works well for Wolves and Lions and Humans once upon a time. Today we exist in artificially large populations and cooperation is critical. Alpha behavior is holding us back. 

We should believe in humans. If we dont, who will? These laws i offer will lead us to a better World. That is what we should all be doing: trying to reach a better World.

 

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Yes, to a slowly increasing extent, really.

We have moved to a time when beheading and stoning to death are looked on unfavourably by the majority of the population, unlike the past.

Nations work together to halt, or minimise at least some genocides and seek punishment for those involved afterwards.

The status of women, at least in the West, is finally approaching a measure of equality.

The US had a black president. The mayor of London is an ethnic Pakistani.

I could go on all day...

 

Just because we are not there yet is no reason to ignore the progress that has been made. Just as having made that progress is no reason to ignore how far we still have to go.

Thumbs up.

[MigL]

We have made progress Area54.
So you would think the last century would be immeasurably better than the previous 10 centuries.

Yet 100 yrs ago, WW1 killed over 20 million people.
20 yrs later, J Stalin, tries to 'modernize' Russia by selling Ukrainian wheat abroad, and starves 10 million Ukrainians.
Shortly thereafter, WW2 killed over 50 million people.
In Communist China, 20 yrs later, Mao tries to outdo Stalin, with the 'great leap forward' and starves at least another 10 million.
There were also millions killed by Cambodia's Pol Pot, and North Korea is also repeating Stalin's and Mao's mistakes in trying to become a military power at the expense of her people.

Yeah, we have made great progress at killing people.

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

We have made progress Area54.
So you would think the last century would be immeasurably better than the previous 10 centuries.

No, I wouldn't think that we would be immeasurably better.

What makes you think I would think that? You have raised a strawman. I thought I had read enough of your posts to believe that you wouldn't stoop to such behaviour. Please specifically address the improvements and progress I did discuss. Are you denying that those improvements and progress did occur?

And even your strawman attack is distorted. You are examining absolute numbers, not percentage of the population. If I played the same game I would have hundreds of millions enjoying a lifestyle unimaginable to medieval kings.  So, lets deal with what I've said, and not what you whimsically pretend I've said.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

We should believe in humans. If we dont, who will?

Humans believe in themselves more than enough. We humans put ourselves well above all other life. The whole earth is ours and ours alone. 

3 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

These laws i offer will lead us to a better World

Countless laws have been created over the millennia. People reject them, find ways around them, use them for selfish purposes, and etc. The laws you came up with are good in spirit but unenforceable and would lead to war. In fairness everything humans seem to do leads to war. Just read a few history books. 

3 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

That is what we should all be doing: trying to reach a better World

Better is a relative term. Some feel humans are better today than 10,000 years ago. In some ways we are but in other ways we aren't. I would imagine ALL non-human life on Earth preferred the way humans were 10,000 years ago. 

[MigL]

Don't 'label' my arguments because you have no rebuttal.

The fact that things are better in some parts of the world, where we can worry about things like animal rights, whereas in other parts ( the majority ) people worry about whether they should eat their pet for lack of food, is the biggest drawback to a 'world' government.
Everyone is for bringing the rest of the world up to our standard of living.
But how many are willing to give up that lifestyle ( unimaginable to medieval kings ) to help the rest of the world ?

Kaiser Willhelm, Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, Mao Ze Dung, Pol Pot and the Kim family of N Korea certainly weren't.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

No, I wouldn't think that we would be immeasurably better.

What makes you think I would think that? You have raised a strawman. I thought I had read enough of your posts to believe that you wouldn't stoop to such behaviour. Please specifically address the improvements and progress I did discuss. Are you denying that those improvements and progress did occur?

And even your strawman attack is distorted. You are examining absolute numbers, not percentage of the population. If I played the same game I would have hundreds of millions enjoying a lifestyle unimaginable to medieval kings.  So, lets deal with what I've said, and not what you whimsically pretend I've said.

People killing people aside Humans kill everything on the planet. We are currently living in an age of mass extinction which is a direct result of our own making. Many of the technologies we celebrate ourselves for creating directly result in the destruction of the natural world as we know it. Only with incredible hubris and little hindsight can we (humans) honestly claim to be improved over our ancestors. Knowledge is cumulative so of course there is more knowledge today than yesterday. As time passes humans will continue to have more knowledge which in turn will enable more technology. That said humans remain our own worst enemies. Nothing kills more humans per year than humans. Nothing kills more fish, whales, deer, grasshoppers, ants, and etc than humans. No other life form other than humans are actively killing the ecosystem of the whole planet. When you say there has been progress you are shuffling chair on the Titanic. Sure we stone less people to death than we use to but the trade off is now we use drones to kill people from thousands of miles away with the push of a button; progress.

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

People killing people aside Humans kill everything on the planet. We are currently living in an age of mass extinction which is a direct result of our own making. Many of the technologies we celebrate ourselves for creating directly result in the destruction of the natural world as we know it. Only with incredible hubris and little hindsight can we (humans) honestly claim to be improved over our ancestors. Knowledge is cumulative so of course there is more knowledge today than yesterday. As time passes humans will continue to have more knowledge which in turn will enable more technology. That said humans remain our own worst enemies. Nothing kills more humans per year than humans. Nothing kills more fish, whales, deer, grasshoppers, ants, and etc than humans. No other life form other than humans are actively killing the ecosystem of the whole planet. When you say there has been progress you are shuffling chair on the Titanic. Sure we stone less people to death than we use to but the trade off is now we use drones to kill people from thousands of miles away with the push of a button; progress.

The problem is, we can't go back even if we wanted too, we have to put our faith in the technology and hope it redeems us and our world.

[Area54]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

People killing people aside Humans kill everything on the planet.

There is a long history, almost all of it, of life forms killing other life forms, directly and indirectly, deliberately and accidentally. I'm not surprised that we are continuing this tradition that, after all, led to our existence in the first place. In a world where the lion lies down with the lamb we know what the lion is having for dinner.

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We are currently living in an age of mass extinction which is a direct result of our own making.

Agreed. We quite possibly are responsible for extinction of most mega-fauna globally and we didn't pay a blind bit of attention to that. This one we have recognised and some of us at least are trying to do something about it. Do you consider our recent ability to recognise, on a global scale, the impact we have as progress, or not. If not, why not? (Hint: pointing out the lunancy of Republican naysayers doesn't count.)

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Many of the technologies we celebrate ourselves for creating directly result in the destruction of the natural world as we know it.

Did I assert that things were perfect? We developed the technology of fire and destroyed many habitats thereby and we didn't even know we were doing it. Now we recognise the problem. Problem recognition is the first step to problem solution.

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Only with incredible hubris and little hindsight can we (humans) honestly claim to be improved over our ancestors.

Then mark me 10 out of 10 for hubris and lack of hindsight. Do you realise it is possible to be deeply aware of the evil, the injustices, the horrors, the inhumanities, the prejudices, the hatred, the destruction, the indifference that permeate human society and yet to recognise the growing concern, effort, commitment, focus and desire to make things better.  They say an optimist lives in the best of all possible worlds and a pessimist fears he is right. You appear to be a pessimist.

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Knowledge is cumulative so of course there is more knowledge today than yesterday. As time passes humans will continue to have more knowledge which in turn will enable more technology.

Good. So you acknowledge some progress. It is how that technology is applied that will determine whether it is good or ill. I view the American obsession with guns are ludicrous, but I acknowledge the truth in the mantra "Guns don't kill people, people do."

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Nothing kills more humans per year than humans.

You might want to take that up with the mosquitos, who dispose of 750,000 a year, as opposed to less than half a million by fellow humans.

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Nothing kills more fish, whales, deer, grasshoppers, ants, and etc than humans

Apart from the whales I'm not sure that is true in each instance. Let me focus for a moment on the deer. In parts of the UK they are screwing up the natural habitat and threatening the survival of several species and entire ecosystems. Do you recommend we stop culling them and let the ecosystems perish? I rather like the solution of reintroducing wolves and letting them take care of them.

 

28 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

When you say there has been progress you are shuffling chair on the Titanic. Sure we stone less people to death than we use to but the trade off is now we use drones to kill people from thousands of miles away with the push of a button; progress.

And, despite the ongoing global conflicts, fewer people are dying violently than in the past. My eyes are wide open to the problems that still exist. I'm sorry yours are closed to progress that is being made.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Don't 'label' my arguments because you have no rebuttal.

The fact that things are better in some parts of the world, where we can worry about things like animal rights, whereas in other parts ( the majority ) people worry about whether they should eat their pet for lack of food, is the biggest drawback to a 'world' government.
Everyone is for bringing the rest of the world up to our standard of living.
But how many are willing to give up that lifestyle ( unimaginable to medieval kings ) to help the rest of the world ?

Kaiser Willhelm, Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, Mao Ze Dung, Pol Pot and the Kim family of N Korea certainly weren't.

I don't need to rebut something that addresses something I never said in the first place. If you don't want to have your arguments labelled as strawmen then don't make strawmen arguments.

Your latest post is more of the same.

I never denied that in some parts of the world people worry where there next meal is coming from. (Point of information, those people generally don't have pets.) Why bring it up?

I've made no declaration at any time about world government. Why bring it up?

The problem of getting people to forego more of their luxuries to benefit those in need is a serious problem. I have never denied that and it is implicit in my recongition that many problems remain. So, why did you bring it up?

We know that assholes are assholes. Why bring it up?

Instead, why don't you address what I have actually said and tell me which of the examples of progress I have mentioned you disagree with.

[MigL]

Because I brought it up in my first post.

To which you replied that things must be getting better, because beheadings and stonings are looked on unfavorably, but still practiced.
That we attempt to stop genocides ( where politically expedient ), and punish those responsible, but you can only punish leaders, not a whole nation.
That out of the approx. 3.5 billion women in the world, the half billion living in the Western world have it pretty good. What of the other 3 billion ?
And if things were that good you would not need to mention the ethnicity/skin color of a President or mayor.

Just because something isn't pertinent to your argument doesn't mean its not pertinent to mine.

I agree some progress has been made, but the rest of the world ( or even certain parts of the Western world ) are a long way from the utopia some imagine.

 

[dimreepr]

In terms of the OP, justice has to be front and center if we hope to even approach the sunlight uplands of utopia. Progress isn't about how many we do or don't kill or how clever we have become, it's about how we justify that progression; because we can't save all life or take a futile revenge on the assholes. 

[Area54]

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

Because I brought it up in my first post.

To which you replied that things must be getting better, because beheadings and stonings are looked on unfavorably, but still practiced.
That we attempt to stop genocides ( where politically expedient ), and punish those responsible, but you can only punish leaders, not a whole nation.
That out of the approx. 3.5 billion women in the world, the half billion living in the Western world have it pretty good. What of the other 3 billion ?
And if things were that good you would not need to mention the ethnicity/skin color of a President or mayor.

Just because something isn't pertinent to your argument doesn't mean its not pertinent to mine.

I agree some progress has been made, but the rest of the world ( or even certain parts of the Western world ) are a long way from the utopia some imagine.

 

Your first post was myopic, focusing only on what was wrong with the world. I implictly accepted all your concerns and offered an alternative viewpoint. Why you felt the need to repeat your initial points again is beyond me. At least you have, finally, conceded that there is progress in some areas. Please take up the matter of an imagined Utopia with those who imagine a Utopia, not with me.

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

n terms of the OP, justice has to be front and center if we hope to even approach the sunlight uplands of utopia. Progress isn't about how many we do or don't kill or how clever we have become, it's about how we justify that progression; because we can't save all life or take a futile revenge on the assholes.

Exactly so.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I agree some progress has been made, but the rest of the world ( or even certain parts of the Western world ) are a long way from the utopia some imagine.

The general world trend since the 80s is, in fact favorable on many levels. The amount of people living in extreme poverty has sharply decline. As of 201 ~700 million (or 10% of the world population)  are living in extreme poverty, down from a peak of 2.2 billion (~60%) in 1970. Part of it is because at some point strategy switched away from destabilizing nations (either due to neo-colonialism or in proxy conflicts within the cold war), but much was also improvement in self- governance.

Other indicators of improved living conditions are the reduction of infant deaths cut by half between 1990 and 2016 as well as a slow-down in population growth (the latter being strongly correlated with women's rights). Further, the participation of women in education has increased worldwide and so has their participation rate in work and governance.

So if we take the bird's eyes view, the situation has been improving, in some cases massively, compared to about a generation ago. It is, however important not to view it exclusively from a Western lens.

On that note, it should also be acknowledged that even in industrialized nations a fraction of the populations lives in extreme poverty. Almost exclusively those with extreme income inequality or recent economic issues. Eexamples include USA and Italy with about 1%,  Greece ~2%. Germany and Canada have about 0.2 and 0.3% (using 2013 data). Though it should be noted that due to a variety of factors the consumption level (and thus living standard) is still higher than in poor countries due to welfare and other mechanisms.

Edited February 12, 2018 by CharonY

[MigL]

Are we in the same thread here?

This OP is not about how much improvement there has been, but whether the nations ( or city states ? ) of the world are on equal footing in terms of improvement.
Are all nations sufficiently democratic, sufficiently 'enlightened', to value people more than wealth/economy ?
At last count there were 49 dictatorships in the world.

I'm sure they'll agree to give it all up and play nice with the rest of us.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are we in the same thread here?

This OP is not about how much improvement there has been, but whether the nations ( or city states ? ) of the world are on equal footing in terms of improvement.
Are all nations sufficiently democratic, sufficiently 'enlightened', to value people more than wealth/economy ?
At last count there were 49 dictatorships in the world.

I'm sure they'll agree to give it all up and play nice with the rest of us.

What revenge do you suggest?

[MigL]

Maybe you'd better elaborate, Dimreepr, as I don't have a clue what you mean.