Can test that? Seeing someone is in trouble, you do what and why? — Athena

That reason tends to make better decisions than emotion? Sure.
What kind of trouble? Is there a child in the river? It's better to get into a boat than jump in and try to swim after him. Because you can row faster than you can swim and if you pull him into the boat there is a better chance of one or both of you surviving than if you try swimming against the current with one arm, and weighed down.
Did your brother-in-law get into debt again? It's better to figure out the reasons for his financial mess than lend him yet another $500. Because that way, you can help him break the cycle of mismanagement, and you save both your money and your relationship.

What motivates a general when planning a campaign? — Athena

Self-aggrandizement, usually. But that doesn't affect the fact that they base decisions on mathematical calculation. The motivation of the computer doesn't alter the math, either.

No way would this be so without capitalism. — Athena

Can you test that?

I am not sure. I know a computer would not care and would not imagine a better life. — Athena

It doesn't need a better life; it is content and has no reason to prevent us improving our lives. And it can help us achieve that, as moguls, who are enriched by our impoverishment, have not done and will never do.

Up until this point I thought you were putting your faith in technology instead of humans. — Athena

What, you mean all that wonderful technology achieved through the benevolence of capitalism? Hell, no! I have no faith in humans or any of our devices.

Would you like to do a thread about the right and wrong of capitalism? — Athena

I don't think so. There is already one about pie. It's a big, contentious issue. People's attitudes are largely formed by their own relative comfort. The casualties and collateral damage don't get to participate - only the beneficiaries. Doesn't seem fair.

Plus, it would be nice if, when the aliens land and ask to be conducted to our leader, — Vera Mont

They won't ask, they will tell. Administrative centers will be reduced to ashes before they land, and the first words out of their sound producing orifices will be, "We bought this ball now we are boss. Get lost, feeble earthlings, and don't let the door hit your asses on your way out!"

They won't ask, they will tell. Administrative centers will be reduced to ashes before they land, and the first words out of their sound producing orifices will be, "We bought this ball now we are boss. Get lost, feeble earthlings, and don't let the door hit your asses on your way out!" — BC

That could happen. If so, I can't see any way to prevent it. OTOH, why assume all technologically advanced life-forms are like us?

OTOH, why assume all technologically advanced life-forms are like us? — Vera Mont

Because aliens that are all sweetness and light are not funny. Humor has an edge and a shadow, otherwise it's just knock-knock jokes for 5 year olds.

Depends on the transmission of values in my eyes, however humanity always accepts that those ideals can be misguided by various reasons such as selfishness, the intervention of aliens as @BC rightfully commented

"Should humanity be unified under a single government? Why or why not? If you were required to set up this government, what kind of government would you create? What threats to sustainability would arise and how would you deal with them? I'd love to hear anyone's thought on this."

No, humanity should not be united under a single government. The reason is - variety is the spice of life. Should the unification happen anyway, people will start being sick because spices make food edible and interesting and cosumable. With no variety in life, life will begin to stink and we actually might become prone to throwing up even at times, not to mention suffocation will begin to happen too. Various cultures, ethnicity, different governments, variety in ruling adds spice to living. But any nation will be okay with the canadian water, electrical systems and 4 coil stove cooking ranges and how they keep their dry foods bug free. Aside of that, every nation's specialty should remain. Under one rule, we will not be into living but be into mere existence.

Under one rule, we will not be into living but be into mere existence. — Beena

Do you mean to say that every immigrant in the Canada is cooking boiled beef and cabbage, because they're under British-style governance?

The time will come when mankind will welcome and thrive under a single world government but it is not now. We are, as yet, too immature, too spiritually immature, for such a thing to work.

Human beings are self centered. We want things. Sometimes we take what we can get in legal ways. We like to tell others what to think, what to say and how to say it. In religion we very often make attempts to shove our beliefs down the throats of others who may not be interested. We demand things.

Well... the above is pretty harsh. When we are in good moods and feeling gregarious, we will be giving and thoughtful but this never lasts. Personal gain sooner or later will enter the picture. Life on this little planet is a struggle. Everything is money, money, money. To secure our futures we need power. OK maybe not personal power but group power. Nationalism will usually provide security for citizens but at what cost?

When the day comes when human beings no longer care about besting anyone else then we might be ready for a single government. in the meanwhile no single authority can answer the needs of all the different schools of thought that exist. We would have to make too many sacrifices, changes.

I'm not ready to "own nothing and be happy". And why not? Because the flavor of living, being alive, would be turned into a stagnant pile of refuse. Life would have lost it's appeal. No challenges, no purposeful direction to aim at.

A single government now, no matter how benign, would rely on a powerful controlling force which would enforce happiness while owning nothing. And this "force" can't exist in a vacuum. A single government now would mean the whole planet being ruled by a small group of men who live apart from the rest of us, protected by geographical isolation. They would have, at their call, a force of police whose duties included running enforcement centers to make sure everyone was happy owning nothing and re-education camps for those who weren't.

And guess who will be the big boys? Just take a look at the self appointed god like men who meet each year in Davos. Yep. A single world government right now would be possible only if it were forced upon the people. And guess who is going to do the forcing? Schwab and company, that 's who.

No thanks... I'll wait until humanity cleans up it's act. Then... a single world government will happen naturally, all by itself. No powerful elites sitting in judgment over the rest of us. None of that.

But event hat existence would be a waste of energy. How are we to advance spiritually if we have no challenges to overcome by beating adversity?

Living on Earth s not easy. There are other planets where human beings don't have it so rough. The benefit here though is that we grow spiritually much faster.

How about we just leave it alone?

How about we just leave it alone? — Varnaj42

We haven't. That's caused the imminent existential threat.

Thanks but I don't call what we have now an existential threat. I call it a leadership crisis. We allow ourselves to be led by fools.

Thanks but I don't call what we have now an existential threat. I call it a leadership crisis. We allow ourselves to be led by fools. — Varnaj42

I see. Good luck finding non-foolish leaders!

Good luck indeed. But everything in life is cyclic. When our present lower path is exhausted a change will be made. Then our society will shuck off the foolishness and return to higher ideals.

Some ask "if there are advanced people on the planet why aren't they in positions of authority? Why do they stay hidden? The answer is that by occasionally selecting the less capable we become burdened with the consequences. Overcoming these... is where true advancement comes from.

If a great spiritual master soul were elected president we would be able to rest and relax for a while, heal our wounds. But... we would have lost the opportunities to gain wisdom that conflict brings to us.

The spiritual Law of Harmony through Conflict applies.

Aha

I would be happy if humanity were united under a single government. Then there would be no borders and no wars. No country would invade its neighbor for lack of neighbors. No one would build bombs, tanks, fighter jets or warships.

Think of the money we'd save for schools lunches - and schools to serve them in!

Think of the money we'd save for schools lunches - and schools to serve them in! — Vera Mont

I don't understand: more peace, less school? How come?

I don't understand: more peace, less school? — Jacques

less war > more peace > less money spent on ordnance > available to spend otherwise; eg food, schools

less war > more peace > less money spent on ordnance > available to spend otherwise; eg food, schools — Vera Mont

Sorry, I got it backwards. Now I understand that you meant savings on ordnance and not on school lunches. :lol:

Besides, I would like it if we all belonged to one nation, if we all had the same skin color, no matter which: white or black, green or blue, the main thing is no differences. I find it very unfortunate that people always want to separate themselves into groups from the others. I never wanted to belong to any group except that of humanity as a whole.

on, for, with, by - pesky little prepositions are like tiny ants, all look the same and get in everywhere

Besides, I would like it if we all belonged to one nation, — Jacques

Yeah, nations were always a bad idea.

if we all had the same skin color, — Jacques

Such uniformity would be less interesting than we have now, but it's only a matter of time.

I never wanted to belong to any group except that of humanity as a whole. — Jacques

I was hoping for a more convivial group, but the dolphins refused to take me along; said white people can't jump.

Such uniformity would be less interesting than we have now, but it's only a matter of time. — Vera Mont

You're right, there would be disadvantages, (I love diversity too) but I think the advantages would outweigh them.

I was hoping for a more convivial group, but the dolphins refused to take me along; said white people can't jump. — Vera Mont

Although I'm not used to being overtaken, I have to admit that you made it. :up: :smile:

That reason tends to make better decisions than emotion? Sure.
What kind of trouble? Is there a child in the river? It's better to get into a boat than jump in and try to swim after him. Because you — Vera Mont

I don't think so. There is already one about pie. It's a big, contentious issue. People's attitudes are largely formed by their own relative comfort. The casualties and collateral damage don't get to participate - only the beneficiaries. Doesn't seem fair. — Vera Mont

can row faster than you can swim and if you pull him into the boat there is a better chance of one or both of you surviving than if you try swimming against the current with one arm, and weighed down.

Can you test that? — Vera Mont

Did your brother-in-law get into debt again? It's better to figumotivation of the computer doesn't alter the math, either.re out the reasons for his financial mess than lend him yet another $500. Because that motivation of the computer doesn't alter the math, either.way, you can help him break the cycle of mismanagement, and you save both your money and your relationship.

The motive is emotion. How we act on it is reasoning. I am just saying that emotion is a necessary part of the equation.
It might be better to charge your

Self-aggrandizement, usually. But that doesn't affect the fact that they base decisions on mathematical calculatimotivation of the computer doesn't alter the math, either.an on.

I don't think so. There is already one about pie. It's a big, contentious issue. People's attitudes are largely formed by their own relative comfort. The casualties and collateral damage don't get to participate - only the beneficiaries. Doesn't seem fair.
Why would you think a generals motivation is aggrandizement? That may be true for some but I hardly think that is what motivates all generals. No one would willing follow such a general and without followers there not be leaders. A leader must engender a high sense of morale. Morale is what we feel when we believe we arIt might be better to charge your e doing the right thing. Or how about virtues are strength. A general must be virtuous. I am now talking about why we need to rely on humans and not technology. The right values bring out the best in all of us and we need to depend on each other for the best results.

Can yomotivation of the computer doesn't alter the math, either.an u test that? — Vera Mont

A better understanding of capitalism is necessary to answer your question. Research requires money and one of the most important functions of capitalism is providing the capital required for research. Another important function of capitalism is inmotivation of the computer doesn't alter the math, either.an creasing the wealth of small investors. That is to spread the wealth throughout the population and when this happens the standard of living improves.

It doesn't need a better life; it is content and has no reason to prevent us improving our lives. And it can help us achIt might be better to charge your ieve that, as moguls have not done. — Vera Mont

Yes, we need to rely on emotional humans. Moguls have not done what? How do you figure a computer that does not care will improve anything?

What would a one-world government govern? How would it be organized?

You're right, there would be disadvantages, (I love diversity too) but I think the advantages would outweigh them. — Jacques

What is the advantage of being meaningless and powerless, no more than a part plugged into a mechanical society, no more needed than another identical part?

↪Vera Mont Thanks but I don't call what we have now an existential threat. I call it a leadership crisis. We allow ourselves to be led by fools. — Varnaj42

Why do we do that? What happened to our judgment?

What is the advantage of being meaningless and powerless, no more than a part plugged into a mechanical society, no more needed than another identical part? — Athena

As I said, I also see the disadvantages of uniformity, even though I don't view them as extreme as you do. Ideally, I would like to have both diversity and peace, but given the nature of human beings, it doesn't seem possible to me. Therefore, I have to choose one side over the other. As difficult as it is for me, I would rather give up diversity than peace. Unfortunately, I have no hope of changing human nature, which would naturally be the most beautiful and best solution.

Who knows, maybe after a year of uniformity, I would say: Please give me back diversity, even if it is connected with contempt, hatred and war. Could be, I don't know.

Yes, we need to rely on emotional humans. Moguls have not done what? How do you figure a computer that does not care will improve anything? — Athena

That quote was damaged in the transcription. This was my actual statement:

It doesn't need a better life; it is content and has no reason to prevent us improving our lives. And it can help us achieve that, as moguls, who are enriched by our impoverishment, have not done and will never do. — Vera Mont

The machine has no life and therefore does not need, want or desire to improve its own life, or make itself richer or more powerful: once the power supply is assured, it doesn't need or want anything for itself.
It has no reason to prevent us improving our lives.
The machine has access to information and the capacity for accurate calculation and prediction, which would be helpful in our efforts to improve our lives.
Emotional moguls, OTOH, have ample motive to prevent us improving our our lives, so that they can reap the benefit of our labour, keep luxuries for themselves, feel important, feel superior, show off bling to one another and control us though fear.

A better understanding of capitalism is necessary to answer your question. Research requires money and one of the most important functions of capitalism is providing the capital required for research. — Athena

You know that's a perfect circle, tight? In a capitalist system, research requires capital and when capitalism supplies the capital, research serves capital.
Capitalists promise a trickle-down benefit to the small investor in their big enterprises (and the small investor in his own enterprise, which, if it is successful enough to compete with them, they will gobble up,) and eventually, even to the minimum-wage worker who will never a get the slightest whiff of an opportunity to invest. It even more or less true. A little trickles down, while a lot is pumped up, with the net result we see today:

The wealth gap among upper-income families and middle- and lower-income families is sharper than the income gap and is growing more rapidly.https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

What would a one-world government govern? How would it be organized? — Athena

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Take out the Security Council of super-delegates, hand over all the military passwords and ignition keys, close the legal exception loopholes and let 'em do the job.
Didn't I say this on Page 1?
I don't envisage a single giant international government, but a democratic federation of independent states.

As difficult as it is for me, I would rather give up diversity than peace. — Jacques

I don't think anything in this world is black and white - not even the colours black and white. A momentary choice may be binary - jump or hold on; go after her or stand still; cross the street now or wait. But long term choices are always more complex.

I have no hope of changing human nature, — Jacques

Human nature took a battering under civilization; the artificial constraints and pressures have altered it its shape. Civilization has turned us into domestic animals for the use of various elites. That's why it has such a bad rep. You get a rare glimpse of its real appearance in social media, a much better look in the environment of close community and local initiatives.

Who knows, maybe after a year of uniformity, I would say: Please give me back diversity, — Jacques

You can't, once this

“All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction.... Bulworth

has run its course, there's no separating the colours again.

once this
program of procreative racial deconstruction
has run its course, there's no separating the colours again. — Vera Mont

Why not? Originally, all humans had the same skin color, namely black, from which the different colors developed. Why shouldn't the same be possible again?

Why shouldn't the same be possible again? — Jacques

Because, it happened through the slow, indirect evolutionary process, not asking or wishing. The evolutionary processes can't be duplicated, because even if we had the technology, we don't know what all the conditions, events, encounters and time periods were.
On a tiny scale, take a box of crayons and melt them in a bowl. Then try to remake all the original crayons.