| MontanaHatchet said: Okay, let's go back to square one then (let's keep this clean): A politician would tell you that this sort of thing could never be accomplished because the "bad guys" won't cooperate. I would tell you that this sort of thing could never happen because it goes against human nature. It is our very human instinct to form groups and fight. This sort of thing will never truly go away, no matter how advanced we become. Right now, we do not have the resources to sustain a world of 7 billion people. That requires food, water, shelter, materials, energy, etc. There's not enough to go around. There's always going to be countries that have it really good, ones that have it average, and ones that have it bad (with many nations falling in varying degrees in between). Now, you could distribute the wealth and resources more evenly, but you know what that's called and I'm sure you're against it more than anyone. So either there's a collaboration and sharing of resources through government (which is pretty much socialism, and wouldn't work since so many governments are selfish, aggressive, and incompetent), or sharing between citizens. The latter also doesn't work, since most people are simply uncaring and selfish. Again, human nature. One could try their best to change this, but it will never really happen. I feel like I'm just going around in circles. The type of world you're describing is never possible, at least not with humans. |
Well I indeed like this post, and almost an antithesis to that of stickball's. This completely takes the notion of the human condition in. I will go over the parts I agree with first and then give my concerns for the other parts.
First and foremost, this world does have way too many people. The main problem concerning a lot of our world's issues is the problem of population (hunger, poverty, lack of space, conservation, global warming, etc.). Obviously population isn't sustainable at our current number. But of course, mother nature has a way of working these things out and eventually she well get the human population down to something sustainable. I guess natural genocide is a little easier to cope with than an artificial one. But obviously I agree with this point.
Second, yes in our current setup there is always going to be the haves and have nots. Another point I agree with in the current times. I think with our capitalist society or mentality around the world, it's almost required that we have those who have a hell of a lot and those who don't have much at all. The best thing about capitalism though, is it can create a very very large middle class in the process which at least was better than the old setup (very few right, lots of poor, hardly any middle class). Now, I am against socialism, but it's not like what it is saying is bad. Truly having everyone working for the benefit of a group rather than the self is quite a concept. Unfortunately, socialism didn't take into account the human condition and that was the power of money.
But as much as I like those points I would like to ask these. Are we all human nature or is their nurture involved in this world? Meaning are we a product of our environment in some areas. Also, do you think our current setup accounts for human nature. Meaning does our government or economy take into account the notion of the human condition. I mean it would seem the best way to counteract this would of course be to build a society that takes into account those things.
So technically an ideal society could still happen if you take into account human nature, it's just it might not be the one we'd think of now because we are thinking about the human condition. If humans are naturally greedy and naturally selfish, the best way to keep them all safe and be able to pursue their pleasures is to control them. That's exactly what Hobbes spoke of. If they were allowed to live on their own life would be poor, short, and brutish.
Me personally, I don't really think there is a human nature. I think we are all products of our environment. Of course I don't have a way to prove that whatsoever, just an observation. Guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on that one.
