What if the world was one country?

Status
Not open for further replies.
this.

what if we all worked together providing resources to create machines that would do stuff for us. no more oil everyone makes wind turbines or farm equipment, or things that benefit mankind not generate profit.

problem is a total attitude change is necessary. and we might need to live without coco pops for a while, but come on? if its going down the pan, we may aswell reinstill value in our lives apart from bank notes.
 
trojan698 said:
this.

what if we all worked together providing resources to create machines that would do stuff for us. no more oil everyone makes wind turbines or farm equipment, or things that benefit mankind not generate profit.
Click to expand...

what are you going to lubricate your wind turbines and farm equipment with?

ignoring how you're going to make them without petroleum products or how your chemical industry is going to function without them and how you're going to keep your health service working when you can no longer make half of your drugs because you don't have a petrochemical industry any more.
 
trojan698 said:
problem is a total attitude change is necessary. and we might need to live without coco pops for a while, but come on? if its going down the pan, we may aswell reinstill value in our lives apart from bank notes.
Click to expand...

well tonight you've spent more on booze than it would have cost to feed an African child or two for a year so you're hardly leading the charge are you?
 
trojan698 said:
this.

what if we all worked together providing resources to create machines that would do stuff for us. no more oil everyone makes wind turbines or farm equipment, or things that benefit mankind not generate profit.

problem is a total attitude change is necessary. and we might need to live without coco pops for a while, but come on? if its going down the pan, we may aswell reinstill value in our lives apart from bank notes.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's possible with our current population.

A value change has to occur - organically, through years of influence or as a result of technological advancement.

Give it 500 years then maybe.
 
Tefal said:
well tonight you've spent more on booze than it would have cost to feed an African child or two for a year so you're hardly leading the charge are you?
Click to expand...
Ah, well you see mate it is us who change, he's an idea guy; just like Marx. It's okay though we'll live in poverty why he drives around in a limo, it's only fair! :D
 
Tefal said:
what are you going to lubricate your wind turbines and farm equipment with?

ignoring how you're going to make them without petroleum products or how your chemical industry is going to function without them and how you're going to keep your health service working when you can no longer make half of your drugs because you don't have a petrochemical industry any more.
Click to expand...

through money, wiseguy.
 
The only way humanity will ever unite, will be in a struggle for survival against a powerful common enemy.

tumblr_m4r6siYXSE1qf9798.jpg


And even then it would most likely be temporary.
 
Last edited:
or so scared i ended up in a white person compound with servants (slaves) with guns. chnage is only possible through ideas, that we all hold.
 
elmarko1234 said:
As opposed to?

The only sensible approach would be a technocracy, one in which decisions are made by those most qualified.

The scientific method of problem solving would be the tool used to shape society, based on our scientific understanding of human needs with elements of a meritocracy.

But that society would take time, for one we would have to wait for a few generations to die off first (along with shaping the coming generations to fit into said society).
Click to expand...

A technocracy would be a nightmare world where Scientific method runs riot and the needs of society as a whole being put above that of the individual. You are advocating massive social engineering and the rule of an authoritarian elite while removing the will of the people.

Who would define merit?, who would define the needs of society? Who would define how scientific methodology was applied and to what? Who would define and decide who was most qualified?......

Where is the individualism in this society, what if the logical and scientific conclusion was that society was better off without the elderly?, the unemployed, the disabled? What would a scientist only employing the scientific method to the problem come up with? What about the natural demarcations and divisions in our societies, such as culture and language? Would a technocracy attempt to remove them, along with other divisive attitudes and philosophies such as religion and ideology or would it try to dilute and change them to fit into the society that the Technocrat defines as the utopian idea? All you are really advocating is a move to a different kind of orthodoxy.

Where is the empathy in that elmarko?

Technocracies have been tried before, and they resulted in some of the worst dystopian visions civilisation has yet to produce and even if we could find a way to create a technocratic utopia that is truly benevolent, it would, by definition still be a Totalitarian State ruled by an Elite and to my mind that loss of individualism and the ability of the people to hold those that they set to represent them to account for their decision is a price far too high to pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom