I really like most of your list of 12 proviso's for a better world but I would change 6 to "Universal FREE education, healthcare and a guaranteed welfare level that provides basic needs, from cradle to grave."
I would change 9 to "Freedom of personal religion but no religious authority figure is acceptable."
I would change 10 to 'Respect for the rights of private property unless it was obtained by nefarious means.'
I would also remove 'freedom from search and seizure,' from your number 8, as you would be removing one of the main defences against nefarious individuals and organisations.

Can you imagine such an attempt and such a committee. :grin:
Who would you put on such a committee? — universeness

I like what Vera Mont said.

It would have to be international - historians who have no national loyalties, or else have thrashed out their biases among their peers. It is possible for a academics to see past and beneath their own inherited mythology. Indeed, quite a few have published fat, well-documented books on the historical distortions in their own nation's identity-story.
Of course, there is a much larger number of books published with the aim of distorting it farther, to serve one faction or another. It's not easy for a the average reader to evaluate them. And, given the investment people have in - and the sacrifices they are asked to make for their country, belief in that narrative is not easily swayed. — Vera Mont

I am wondering, isn't it possible to determine what is a myth and want is a fact? Many ancient people realized they must know truth because to believe in something that is false will lead to bad results. Knowing the truth is important to democracy and our health. Believing demons make us sick and refusing to believe it is germs or believing a god will protect us from disease is not a good choice. Believing we can get away with destroying our atmosphere is not a good choice. Believing lying to the masses to be popular with them is not a good choice. Following liers is not a good choice. Following people who want control of oil, such as the invasion of Iraq, is not a good choice. These are not good choices because the consequence of bad choices is bad outcomes.

Didn't Aristotle argue if it doesn't have substance it is not real, or something like that. Gods have no substance and we can not directly experience them. We can think of a god and have a feeling that we think is a god, but how do prove that is a god and not own reaction to what we think? I once used Artmis a Greek goddess to help me get off a forested mountain but I know these gods and goddesses as concepts, not as beings. This is extremely important because only when what we believe is correct will we get good outcomes. Acting on false information results in bad outcomes.

Concerns about public misinformation in the United States—ranging from politics to science—are growing. Here, we provide an overview of how and why citizens become (and sometimes remain) misinformed about science. Our discussion focuses specifically on misinformation among individual citizens. However, it is impossible to understand individual information processing and acceptance without taking into account social networks, information ecologies, and other macro-level variables that provide important social context. Specifically, we show how being misinformed is a function of a person’s ability and motivation to spot falsehoods, but also of other group-level and societal factors that increase the chances of citizens to be exposed to correct(ive) information. We conclude by discussing a number of research areas—some of which echo themes of the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Communicating Science Effectively report—that will be particularly important for our future understanding of misinformation, specifically a systems approach to the problem of misinformation, the need for more systematic analyses of science communication in new media environments, and a (re)focusing on traditionally underserved audiences. — Dietram A. Scheufele https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9914-5407 scheufeleatwiscdotedu and Nicole M. Krause

Ah yes, the myth of 'discernment by committee' ... — 180 Proof

Well yes, do you have a better idea? Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued with each other until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. What follows is rule by reason. This goes with understanding logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. These ideas are what brought us to our greatness and forgetting them, following a false god, is problematic.

Okay. We're now just talking past each other. Thanks for the exchange.

Well, as I've pointed out previously, I prefer 'economic democracy fortified by universally enfranchised representative democracy' rather than our status quo laissez-faire, plutonomic, "representative democracy" (i.e. constitutional republicanism) inspired by classical Athens-Rome and established in 1789. The insidious "group think" (which was reinforced in the 20th century by public relations, mass media/consumerism & John Wayne's Hollywood) of "the people" – who have only ever ratified the various exploitation-agendas of plutocrats with their "morally-informed" votes – was baked into the US system some one hundred and eighty years before the "1958 National Defense Education Act ". :roll:

I am wondering, isn't it possible to determine what is a myth and want is a fact? — Athena

*Myths and facts have only the most tenuous relationship.*
If you mean determine what's true and false in history, the answer is: Not always. Documents and chronicles are as often falsified as destroyed; witnesses and participants lie, or are intimidated into silence. Past facts may be unrecoverable, unverifiable. But a good many historical facts do survive; conflicting and differing records can be compared; time-lines and family lineages traced; supporting documentation found in the form of personal correspondence and journals; business ledgers, cargo manifests, registers of birth, marriage and death survive... Even quite a lot of physical evidence can be detected by scientific methods. It's painstaking, intellectually demanding work, but there are those who love it and are faithful to it.

* The word 'myth' is so frequently used to stand for falsehood or lie that it's now considered an exact synonym. It is not. A myth is a story that has been passed down in a culture through oral tradition; it may have had some basis in fact at one, or it may be a conflation of old legends; either way, they are part of the fabric of a human society; a narrative of identity and continuity; it's purpose is not and has never been to deceive anyone. I would plead for a distinction between 'myth' and 'lie'. *

I really like most of your list of 12 proviso's for a better world but I would change 6 to "Universal FREE education, healthcare and a guaranteed welfare level that provides basic needs, from cradle to grave."
I would change 9 to "Freedom of personal religion but no religious authority figure is acceptable."
I would change 10 to 'Respect for the rights of private property unless it was obtained by nefarious means.'
I would also remove 'freedom from search and seizure,' from your number 8, as you would be removing one of the main defences against nefarious individuals and organisations. — universeness

How about Cicero? “God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Cicero

“law in the proper sense is right reason in harmony with nature.” when all understand this “there will not be one such law in Rome and another in Athens, one now and another in the future, but all peoples at all times will be embraced by a single and eternal unchangeable law.” 4

In case everyone is not familiar with Cicero, he was a Roman statesman who studied in Athens. He is speaking of knowing logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe.

I want to throw Star Trek into this argument and the mandate to not interfere in the lives of those on other planets. As global overpopulation has resulted in a flood of people coming to US borders and overwhelming cities that are pressed to care for them, it is only logical for us to sincerely wish their own nations could meet their needs. We want the best for everyone and sent many of them our Industries believing if their economies grew commerce for everyone would get better. But let us consider the Star Trek mandate. It is impossible for the whole world to have the standard of living of the US, because this is a finite planet and that means there are limits to what we can do and for how long we can do it.

We bought off Israel and Egypt to maintain peace in the mid-east and this worked pretty well but we ignored the Muslim Palestinians and this ignorance has not gone well and other Muslim countries who want to defend the Palestinian Muslims and we come out as the evil empire and a good share of the world is turning against the US, same as the Greek city-states turned against Athens and support Sparta in the destruction of Athens.

Exactly what are our limits and what should they be, as we wish all the very best?

Well, as I've pointed out previously, I prefer 'economic democracy fortified by representative democracy' rather than our status quo laissez-faire, plutonomic, "representative democracy" (i.e. constitutional republicanism) inspired by classical Athens & Rome and established in 1789. The "group think" of "the people" – who have only ever ratified with their "morally-informed" votes the various exploitation agendas of plutocrats – was baked into the US system almost two centuries prior to the "1958 National Defense Education Act ". — 180 Proof

I think you have a spot on your body that makes you imperfect and maybe I should not attempt to reason with an imperfect person. All of Athena and all of Rome were not of one mind. Would you please stop ending discussions with statements of a perceived Roman or Athenian flaw. The Enlightenment took what was best of Athens and Rome and embraced it, opening the opportunity for us to do even better.
Can we please focus on the good?

What do you know of Deming's democratic model for Industry and the possible social and economic ramifications of replacing autocratic industry with the democratic model? I have said democracy is about how we live. What is the difference between autocracy and democracy that could have a huge impact on families and our whole social economic order?

Learning Group Think is learning how to think without learning the logic for good reasoning. It goes with reliance on authority and that reliance on authority has terrible political and social ramifications. I don't think you are understanding the bigger picture? We changed HOW we teach the young to think and made them dependent on authority and easily swayed. People have become reactionary instead of being independent thinkers, and the increase in mental health problems demonstrates what is wrong with this change.

The trouble is that the Star Trek prime directive was NEVER applied in our early history.
Bloody conquest was the main clarion call in the infancy of what we at some point called 'civilisation.'
The global socioeconomic complete imbalance that exists today, is a consequence of those who in the past with tech advantages, did not adhere to a prime directive, that compelled them to leave aboriginal peoples unmolested.

Would you follow the Shadows or the Vorlons in the Babylon 5 universe, or would you reject them both?

Can we please focus on the good? — Athena

My apologies for the defect in my character whereby my brand of historical nostalgia fails to be myopic and pollyanna enough for your liking. Enjoy your Mother's Day, madame. :victory:

:100:

*Myths and facts have only the most tenuous relationship.*
If you mean determine what's true and false in history, the answer is: Not always. Documents and chronicles are as often falsified as destroyed; witnesses and participants lie, or are intimidated into silence. Past facts may be unrecoverable, unverifiable. But a good many historical facts do survive; conflicting and differing records can be compared; time-lines and family lineages traced; supporting documentation found in the form of personal correspondence and journals; business ledgers, cargo manifests, registers of birth, marriage and death survive... Even quite a lot of physical evidence can be detected by scientific methods. It's painstaking, intellectually demanding work, but there are those who love it and are faithful to it.

* The word 'myth' is so frequently used to stand for falsehood or lie that it's now considered an exact synonym. It is not. A myth is a story that has been passed down in a culture through oral tradition; it may have had some basis in fact at one, or it may be a conflation of old legends; either way, they are part of the fabric of a human society; a narrative of identity and continuity; it's purpose is not and has never been to deceive anyone. I would plead for a distinction between 'myth' and 'lie'. * — Vera Mont

I believe we are in the Resurrection. Geologists, anthropologists, and related sciences are digging up the past, and it is our job to learn as much as we can and to rethink everything. Like God did not make an Eden that is big enough for all of us and that we can feed so many people is to our credit. Something that could not be achieved if humans were afraid of gaining knowledge. I was thinking of a more general agreement on what is a fact and what is a myth than the detailed judgment of truth of which you speak.

Can one group of people be superior and can this justify them exploiting those who are inferior? If some can be superior to others what are the characteristics of superiority? Socrates said if we exploit people sooner or later they become our problem. Is that true? Is there a God who has favorite people? I guess I am leaning toward debates of being ethical and moral that bring out the good instead of the bad. I am not sure if it matters what color I am, or where my family line began, but I do think it matters if we believe in creationism or evolution.

Of course, we need to know what is true because our decisions must be based on truth or the outcome will be bad. If an untruth is advanced for good reason and is truly believed to be a truth and not a lie, it is still going to lead to bad results. I would not call religious people liars but I do not agree they know the truth and there are good reasons for resolving this problem.

As global overpopulation has resulted in a flood of people coming to US borders and overwhelming cities that are pressed to care for them, it is only logical for us to sincerely wish their own nations could meet their needs. — Athena

Global overpopulation is caused by factors readily traceable through history. The proselytizing religions had a fair amount to do with it, as did the requirement of agriculture and war machineries for cheap human raw material. Industry needed fewer workers, but a surplus labour pool kept them in perpetual competition and thus kept wages low. Unfettered reproduction in the lower classes has always served the interes of the upper classes, who kept their own relatively low, by the simple expedient of constraining their women and casting their own surplus seed to the lower classes.

. We want the best for everyone and sent many of them our Industries believing if their economies grew commerce for everyone would get better. — Athena

Now there's a typically American whopper of a historical distortion! American industry colonized the 'developable' world the same way the British had before them - with the aid of military intervention where guile and buying already corrupt officials failed. The industrialists were, at first, strip-mining everywhere for natural resources, and later for cheap, compliant labour. If the process was made easier by replacing inconvenient or unco-operative native governments, they had the means to do so. Those countries didn't become 'shitholes' by accident or the local population's efforts.

Throughout the nineteenth century and up to the 1930s,

American corporations stridently resisted local opposition — https://www.unmpress.com/9780826319968/the-century-of-u-s-capitalism-in-latin-america/

as they secured what they wanted in Latin America, cheap labor, plentiful raw materials, and favorable business conditions. After World War II, Latin American nationalism and revolutions forced American-owned enterprises to redefine their business model throughout the region. U.S. businesses integrated themselves into local societies through direct investment in manufacturing and the creation of broad-based consumer societies eager to buy everything from Coca-Cola to Chevrolets

Here are eight of the most notorious cases of US interference in Latin America.

Nothing remotely Star Trekky!

It is impossible for the whole world to have the standard of living of the US, because... — Athena

...we already grabbed the goodies and we're not gonna share.
How much hunger could be alleviated with just the food Americans waste?

he United States discards more food than any other country in the world: nearly 40 million tons — 80 billion pounds — every year.

And of course, the waste doesn't start or end with food.
(BTW - the American standard of living is not exactly uniform throughout the American population - and some Africans are quite wealthy, too.)

My apologies for the defect in my character whereby my brand of historical nostalgia fails to be myopic and pollyanna enough for your liking. Enjoy your Mother's Day, madam. — 180 Proof

Do you think we would be where we are today without the Enlightenment which spread knowledge that originated in Athens and Rome and ended rule by the Chruch and kings? Using insults to cover up an inability to use reason, is very modern.

Don't strain your arm by patting yourself too much on the back too hard.

How anti-modern – retrograde – of you to say so.

:100:

Global overpopulation is cased by factors traceable through history. The proselytizing religions had a fair amount to do with it, as did the requirement of agriculture and war machineries for cheap human raw material. Industry needed fewer workers, but a surplus labour pool kept them in perpetual competition and thus kept wages low. Unfettered reproduction in the lower classes has always served the interes of the upper classes, who kept their own relatively low, by the simple expedient of constraining their women and casting their own surplus seed to the lower classes. — Vera Mont

I love your arguments that begin with information. That advances discussion.

Now there's a typically American whopper of a historical distortion! American industry colonized the 'developable' world the same way the British had before them - with the aid of military intervention where guile and buying already corrupt officials failed. The industrialists were, at first, strip-mining everywhere for natural resources, and later for cheap, compliant labour. If the process was made easier by replacing inconvenient or unco-operative native governments, they had the means to do so. Those countries didn't become 'shitholes' by accident or the local population's efforts.
Throughout the nineteenth century and up to the 1930s,
American corporations stridently resisted local opposition
— https://www.unmpress.com/9780826319968/the-century-of-u-s-capitalism-in-latin-america/
as they secured what they wanted in Latin America, cheap labor, plentiful raw materials, and favorable business conditions. After World War II, Latin American nationalism and revolutions forced American-owned enterprises to redefine their business model throughout the region. U.S. businesses integrated themselves into local societies through direct investment in manufacturing and the creation of broad-based consumer societies eager to buy everything from Coca-Cola to Chevrolets
Here are eight of the most notorious cases of US interference in Latin America.
Nothing remotely Star Trekky! — Vera Mont

There is nothing to argue against, but I will add my perspective that never before could we feed so many people and actually have a choice to lift the level of poverty so that all have a decent standard of living. That is, today, what is possible means an increasing number of people trying to figure out how to feed the world and give everyone a decent standard of living, so they are not desperately risking their lives to get into more successful countries. The truth of our caring is real, and it was not possible in the past. Also, we know more about them thanks to modern media than we ever did. I knew relatively nothing about the rest of the world when I was growing up and I was unaware of any reason to know about the rest of the world. Today is a very different reality and we are working on figuring out how to live with this new reality.

However, in the distant past, a few people did travel and they returned with information and objects from their travels. There was some commerce and cultural transmission. Just nothing like what we have to today! In the past, I would have been too concerned about keeping my own family alive to care about people miles away. We can think of a better world because we have a better world.

Considering our businesses represent us around the world, perhaps we the people should have a say in how we are represented? That would be less of a problem if we replaced the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model. The global problem is an excellent reason to return education to education for good moral judgment. The place to start making a better world is education. We got to get people thinking about right and wrong, not just about making a profit. Truth is our reality is what we make it and we need better education for making good choices.

Would you follow the Shadows or the Vorlons in the Babylon 5 universe, or would you reject them both? — universeness

I know nothing of them.

The trouble is that the Star Trek prime directive was NEVER applied in our early history.
Bloody conquest was the main clarion call in the infancy of what we at some point called 'civilisation.'
The global socioeconomic complete imbalance that exists today, is a consequence of those who in the past with tech advantages, did not adhere to a prime directive, that compelled them to leave aboriginal peoples unmolested. — universeness

Universeness you may appreciate this. The Celts and Greeks got along just fine at first. Unlike the Celts and Romans. As the Celts perceived the Romans they not only made slaves of others, but they also made slaves of themselves. It would take a lot more information gathering for me to maintain a discussion of such matters but I think it is worth knowing more.

In time the Celtic population increased, leading to their migration south and wars fought to occupy new territory in the Roman/Greek region. If we think of ourselves as evolved from an ape-like creature we can perhaps be more forgiving of human behavior and maybe a bit more in awe of our desire to do better. Packs of dogs and troops of chimpanzees do not stop to question the rightness of fighting for the recourses and territory they needed. Why do expect so much more from humans?

My brain tires and it is time for me to rest. I am listening to lectures about Hinduism right now. Their epic myth that made them more resistant to war put them on a different path than the path Rome followed. My goodness there is so much to know, and my poor brain can't keep up with my desire to know.

I know nothing of them. — Athena

Here is a little 10 min taster that I think is quite a good summary of the human condition projected into a possible future which includes reaching a technical maximum.

Cultural narratives, national identity stories are very difficult to question, let alone relinquish. Thus, we tend to pick the good bits from the past to be proud and ignore all the associated bad and demand the good bits back, then turn around without batting an eyelash and insist that it's better now and still improving.

Would you follow the Shadows or the Vorlons in the Babylon 5 universe, or would you reject them both? — universeness

Since they come at you with a sneaky question, by the time you begin to understand the choice, you're already committed. (And then they both betray you.) Not a bad analogy for political systems.

(We just started watching it again last week, but had to skip so many unsavoury episodes, we switched over to DS9. More fun, less torture.)

Universeness you may appreciate this. The Celts and Greeks got along just fine at first. Unlike the Celts and Romans. As the Celts perceived the Romans they not only made slaves of others, but they also made slaves of themselves. It would take a lot more information gathering for me to maintain a discussion of such matters but I think it is worth knowing more. — Athena

I think the general historical view is summarised as something like:
We don’t actually know what the Celts called themselves. The name ‘Celts’ is a modern name which is used to describe many tribes of people who lived during the Iron Age. None of the Classical texts refer to the peoples of Britain and Ireland as Celts. Therefore, as the Celts were a collection of tribes, they were more generally known by the name of those tribes or societies as opposed to a collective nation or empire.

There are some writings based on:
To the Greeks, they were known as Keltoi, Keltai or Galatai and to the Romans Celti, Celtae and Galli.
and some snipits such as:
In 279BC the Celts were known to have looted Delphi, the sacred Greek site. Strabo (Geographer) recorded a meeting between the Celts and Alexander the Great in 335BC in the Balkans. Classical writers had recorded a large-scale migration of Celts soon after 400BC, this migration took the Celts from central Europe into Northern Italy and Eastern Europe.

But exactly who counted as a 'celt' is very much in dispute.

I think it's more interesting to talk about the relations between the Greek city states and the Spartans and of course, the Persians. The Spartans for example, imo, were xenophobic Nazis of the worse kind and the Greeks not much better, especially under that hell spawn, Alexander the butcher.

If we think of ourselves as evolved from an ape-like creature we can perhaps be more forgiving of human behavior and maybe a bit more in awe of our desire to do better. Packs of dogs and troops of chimpanzees do not stop to question the rightness of fighting for the recourses and territory they needed. Why do expect so much more from humans? — Athena

I expected more because we were as intelligent, during, and way before the days of ancient Greece and Egypt, as we are now. Okay, we didn't know as much as we do now, but we did not have to be the savages we had to be, in our days in the jungle under the jungle rules of survival. We did not have to bring the rules of the jungle with us, to our first major settlements such as Jericho, Uruk etc.
We could have worked with other tribes instead of perpetual tribal war.
Every human alive today should be angry about our bloody history and we DO INDEED need to learn that we could have been much better than that, much faster than we seem to be able to.
Will we need another 10,000 years of tears and bloody slaughter before we can even create a human society that has a moral base, which is at least as honourable, as the society portrayed by Gene Roddenberry's imaginings?

My brain tires and it is time for me to rest. I am listening to lectures about Hinduism right now. Their epic myth that made them more resistant to war put them on a different path than the path Rome followed. My goodness there is so much to know, and my poor brain can't keep up with my desire to know. — Athena

Just enjoy the opportunity to learn more and know more Athena, and then rest, in the comfort of knowing that your insatiable desire for more knowledge and to be able to 'understand,' is about the best and most virtuous desire it's possible for a human to demonstrate.
As Carl Sagan said, "I don't want to believe, I want to know!"

As John Sheridan has been known to utter, "absafragginlootly Vera."
Ok, I added the Vera part myself but yes, those who cannot find satisfactory purpose in their own existence, can often focus on control over others, as a way of gaining purpose for themselves.
The Shadows and the Vorlons were supposed to guide the younger races but their ideological differences, became far more important to them than their responsibility towards the task they were given. They utterly failed as guardians. We are currently doing the same in our natural imperative as guardians of our children, our planet and all the flora and fauna on it.
There is a vast universe to explore, but can we earn the privilege to do so?
That's how I see things anyway for whatever that's worth.

As John Sheridan has been known to utter, "absafragginlootly — universeness

I lean toward Garibaldi's outlook. But you knew that.

Yeah, but he had a lot to deal with, alcoholism, his best friend was killed on Mars because of his investigation, his best friends daughter (who used to call him Uncle mike,) nearly destroyed him, he got shot by his second in command that HE appointed, he got captured by the shadows and then tortured and turned into a psy-core zombie by BESTER, etc, etc. I am not surprised he became a little pessimistic. John Sheridan had some tough times as well, but he managed to remain quite optimistic.
Have you suffered like they suffered? and what about poor G'Kar, who suffered more that all of them imo. YOU CAN DO IT VERA! Stay with us! Draw a line against the darkness! Join the army of light!
:joke:

I am not surprised he became a little pessimistic. — universeness

He started out pessimistic and suspicious. He ended up optimistic, in control and finally prepared to be happy.

Draw a line against the darkness! Join the army of light! — universeness

I'm too old to enlist in an army. Plus, I've hated uniforms since Grade 1. Besides, what's the core message of B5? Another two thousand years, still money, still religion, still war, still exploitation and oppression, cruelty and deceit - same old crap on a much bigger stage.

No need to wear a uniform Vera, you can become part of the civ branch. You are never too old to be helpful and useful. The same old crap is still around in B5 sure but Zathras explains the great hope for peace and that the next great story is coming. Hopefully the story improves after each great effort to change things for the better:

Hopefully the story improves after each great effort to change things for the better — universeness

Wishful fantasy. If the greed-driven corporate economy and the deceitful, infighting, xenophobic government of an interplanetary empire is exactly like the corrupt, deceitful, infighting, xenophobic government of ancient Assyria, where is the "better"? Where is the arc of history?

Well Steven Pinker did a fairly good job of pointing out the overall improvements since the days of the ancients, with his 72 charts in the 'Enlightenment Now' book.

I know. What a sweet Pollyanna! Good-looking, too.

My goodness that was very complex. I think it definitely qualifies as myth. I wonder what the Greek gods would be like if at the time their consciousness included the possibility of spaceships and different races throughout the universe fighting for their ideologies and battling for control of humans.

I think that is exactly how the ancient minds worked in the creation of earthly god myths, except the ancients had no thought of space travel so there had to be gods they could use to express the thoughts that came to mind as their civilizations grew. We know the goddess Athena was changed when Athens entered the war with Persia and Apollo came at a time when growth was causing chaos pressuring people to think things through rather than just react to events. They were creating their movie and explaining how things happen. By "they", I mean all ancients trying to figure out how we should live together.

That is how I see things because I have written my whole life and I have had moments when I was sure I was inspired and saying brilliant things. That is how it is when we get into the creative mode. I also know the ancients invented more and more gods as they realized new concepts and an Egyptian pharaoh ordered his scribes to search the archives and figure out which of the gods is a true god. For a while a pharaoh ordered there was only one god, pissing off all the priests representing other gods. Anyway, isn't it helpful to see a modern example of thinking about the gods/aliens and humans?

Wishful fantasy. If the greed-driven corporate economy and the deceitful, infighting, xenophobic government of an interplanetary empire is exactly like the corrupt, deceitful, infighting, xenophobic government of ancient Assyria, where is the "better"? Where is the arc of history? — Vera Mont

I think I understand the reasoning behind your thought, but I am bewildered that we can not achieve "the better" through reasoning. I think we are proving those of the Enlighten right, that with reason we can do better. We are doing much, much better than we have done in the past, but we are at a critical point now and this has thrown us into chaos, as Athens and all civilizations have had their moments of crisis and were forced to rethink everything and evolve to new levels of complexity. We must continue as the gods, arguing until we have a consensus on the best reasoning.

And son of a gun, if we want peace, we need a president who knows better than say stupid things that piss off the leaders of violent countries. Creating ourselves as the enemy of other nations is a really stupid thing to do! and I am very disappointed in our present leader.