Editorial: How to achieve world peace, or how I learned to love the human race through genetic manip

I've often thought about what means we can take to ensure future world peace. Most of what I present in this post reflects my understandings of sociology, moreso than individual physchology. Often this does relate to the concept of a One World Government, or New World Order. The conclusions I've come to regarding this subject are what I wish to discuss in this thread.

I like to think I have a relatively good understanding of the general human psyche, and how humans on average tend to think. I know that the human race, for the most part, is largely power-hungry, self-centered, and determined to get what they want, no matter the cost. I also understand that there are exceptions to this idea; however these are typically the people that allow themselves to get stepped on, and often never succeed in the world. Generally speaking, the human race is a species of life that is willing to do anything, no matter how heinous, to achieve their goals. There are countless examples of this over the years: The Crusades, the War in Iraq, terrorists killing innocent people to prove a point, the war for Scottish independence, Hitler, Stalin, the ancient Romans. The list goes on.

The fact is, people, as a whole, will never learn to get along. Even in the aftermath of a scenario such as was presented in the film Independence Day, I promise you that within a decade or two, humans would be back to their petty quarrels. It's simple human nature. Individuals are smart and can be idealistic. People in general are sheep, willing to follow the masses to world conflict and possible death.

How would we be able to overcome this notion of the human race? Well, I haven't found any solution as far as using simply psychology and natural means. Step one, and it scares the [excrement] out of me to say this, would be total genetic engineering, much like the world of the film Gattaca. But, as is explored in the film, there is no gene for the human spirit. So, assuming complete genetic engineering came about, you now have a race of genetically engineered superhumans (possibly eliminating violence - assuming violent tendencies are a genetic trait) who still backstab each other to get their way. Humans are still in just as much conflict, only far more passive about it. How do you eliminate the conflict? Well, the first step is creating a world government similar to the one demonstrated in the novel Brave New World. This would be a government that keeps Totalitarian control over its citizens through the use of sex and drugs (and given basic human nature, sex and drugs would be far more effective than the use of fear, such as in the novel 1984), thus keeping the general populous so stimulated and in a state of perpetual pleasure that they don't care what the world governments do. However, as was explored in that novel, there is still room for dissent, by those that don't remain in a constant state of pleasure from the government applied controls. To combat that problem, you introduce a further state of drugs, designed to turn people into sheep, much like the government issued and required drugs in the film THX-1138. Once you've fulfilled people's basic needs for shelter, food and clothing, satiated the desire for lust and escape, and sedated the human race, then will be a time to unite the world's people to a singular cause - unity between all humans.

Unfortunately, this is a VERY bleak look on the future of humanity. It scares the $%^#$ out of me to even suggest it, but the foundations for just such a system are in place, what with the CIA drug trade, the recent advances in human DNA understanding, and the wanton disregard for human life exhibited by many governments in the world.

I really only see two possible outcomes for the world population in the future: the first is what I have suggested above, and the other is a situation like the Mad Max films, or the video game world of the Fallout series, both of which look at the human race after a massive nuclear holocaust.

We're either going to engineer the human race into an unrecognizable facsimile of ourselves, or virtually eradicate the entire human race, and be forced to rebuild from the ashes, destined to continue repeating our mistakes until the Earth is finally consumed by the Sun (or rendered uninhabitable).

[EDIT: spelling]

[edit on 6/22/2006 by obsidian468]

Interesting theory - I share your sentiments on several fronts.

I'll even go so far as to state that several of these proposed "ideas" are already manifesting in the world around us.

Might I also suggest the internet as being a viable tool for psychological research into the minds of the masses? Granted, most people fear the unbridled "intrusion" into their privacy - but really, there is nothing to fear so long as one is not engaged in nefarious activities.

The internet keeps us active, yet passive. It also brings us together in a way that would be impossible in the normal day to day - we are not biased against one another based on what one looks like or what clothes on wears, but rather how one expresses oneself - even then, the online community is much more accepting and tolerant than the world at large.

Video games and "virtual reality" attained by our populaces newfound obsession with electronic gadgets are helping us to cope psychologically on several fronts. This trend can only grow, and in several of the more cosmopolitan cities, it is not uncommon to see people sitting at cafes working on their laptops, while teenagers bustle on the sidewalk entertained by their new found credit cards and cell phones.

I think the prosect of the Brave New World is indeed in it's infancy, and not given nearly as enough credit as it is due - after all, a happy and occupied consumer population is far less likely to rebel than an oppressed and lacking one.

Would love to hear more of your ideas!

Though the picture you paint is quite bleak, I must concede it has its merit in the realm of possibility. Possibility does not equal probability though.

I'm an optimist.

I think we're going to find a way to feed the people that are hungry. We will find shelter for those that are in the cold and we will eventually build a world where want is a story children learn about in history textbooks.

The technology we are exploring and building could bring about either scenario.

This is your post though and my intent is not to hijack/derail it. You have made some very valid points here.

I just wanted to say that with the darkness there will also be light. One would be irrelevent without the other.

I'm crossing my fingers and holding on to hope. I may be dashed in the end but living a life in despair would mean I was dashed from the beginning.

Just my thoughts on it,

wupy

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
I'll even go so far as to state that several of these proposed "ideas" are already manifesting in the world around us.

That they are, as outlined in my original post.

Might I also suggest the internet as being a viable tool for psychological research into the minds of the masses? Granted, most people fear the unbridled "intrusion" into their privacy - but really, there is nothing to fear so long as one is not engaged in nefarious activities.

While this is mostly true, there is the contingent of the general populace that fears invasion of privacy through any route, regardless of wether or not they're doing anything wrong. I'm one of them. However, even in light of that, I still tend to discuss controversial or anti-government sentiments over such mediums as the phone (which we all know the CIA has been keeping records of the calls made, if not the conversations themselves) as well as internet mediums such as Yahoo Messenger and AIM. I figure that I'd have a better chance of exposing government injustice in court than I ever will through the internet.

The internet keeps us active, yet passive. It also brings us together in a way that would be impossible in the normal day to day - we are not biased against one another based on what one looks like or what clothes on wears, but rather how one expresses oneself - even then, the online community is much more accepting and tolerant than the world at large.

This is very true, even given the amount of internet fights I've seen happen. Typically, these fights are over personal ideals, and not because of the physical appearance of people. The internet fights I've seen occur are often caused by differences of opinion, hatred towards a verbally admitted race or sexual preference, etc. The fights I witness (or have been involved in - I live in Baltimore City, so there's a lot of people with differing opinions all living in close proximity) have been over who's boyfriend had sex with who, race issues, drug deal issues, or physical appearance issues (I have been jumped on a few occasions, based solely on the fact that I have long hair, and am male, not to mention that I often dress a little odd -I dress comfortably, which is often not exactly the height of street fashion). In my dealings across the internet, I am seen as simply a human with a voice, regardless of gender, sexual preference, race, or other lines. It is true that the Internet could be a place to harvest unity among humans, but all too often has it proven to be a breeding ground for hatred and sexual predators to really assure unity through anonymity.

Video games and "virtual reality" attained by our populaces newfound obsession with electronic gadgets are helping us to cope psychologically on several fronts. This trend can only grow, and in several of the more cosmopolitan cities, it is not uncommon to see people sitting at cafes working on their laptops, while teenagers bustle on the sidewalk entertained by their new found credit cards and cell phones.

While such devices can provide an escape for people (I, myself, have found much enjoyment recntly in playing "Rise of Nations"), it still does not limit human nature, so much as distract it. Credit cards are the same way. People find themselves able to buy things they could not otherwise afford with credit cards (big screen TVs, surround sound systems, computers, cameras, PDAs, antiques, etc), but come the end of the day, the distractions provided by the unaffordable purchases are quickly sidestepped by the reality of life - people hate each other. Because of this, the teenager with the newfound credit card may still beat the snot out of some homosexual at the end of the day, with no reason whatsoever besides hatred of the lifestyle.

I think the prosect of the Brave New World is indeed in it's infancy, and not given nearly as enough credit as it is due - after all, a happy and occupied consumer population is far less likely to rebel than an oppressed and lacking one.

My point exactly. However the exception to this notion (and a rather large exception) is that one can never fully control the human spirit. Even with an encouraged and accepted notion of human sexuality and drug use as a means to placate the public, there are still those that would resist. I know many of them (myself included, at least after I got over the sexually free aspect of that - I myself am a sexual addict). The fact is, you can only placate so many people by providing stimulants to the public. Even as strong a factor as sexuality is with most people, they still desire more.

If some of the points I make in this reply oppose my original statements, it's because I don't agree with the statements I made, but do accept that the original statements I made outline a means to form peace among humanity. It really bothers me to make such statements as I made in my original post, but feel that, as horrible as the suggestions are, they're the only way to ensure world peace.

MrWupy, let me first thank you for your intelligent and thought-out reply. I do tend to agree with you in many regards, may it be something as simple as my hope that the outcomes detailed in my original post never come to be.

Originally posted by mrwupy
Though the picture you paint is quite bleak, I must concede it has its merit in the realm of possibility. Possibility does not equal probability though.

I'm an optimist.

I'm an optimist as well, which is part of the reason it pained me so much to make that original post. My theory doesn't go into any sort of real conspiracy theory, but is based only in what has been corroberated by most of the American news sources out there. Most Americans are already familliar with the basis for the argument I present here.

I think we're going to find a way to feed the people that are hungry. We will find shelter for those that are in the cold and we will eventually build a world where want is a story children learn about in history textbooks.

I really want you to be right. However, what I've observed in recent history (specifically the past six years or so), it doesn't really look too optimistic. Between wars and lies propogated by the US govenment, medical technology breakthroughs (especially concerning the Human Genome Project), the apparent placacity of the world population (even those resisting largely want to try and solve things through the already corrupt system, and aren't willing to take the physical action allowed to Americans in the Bill of Rights), and world governments as they are, willing to sacrifice their own populations for war (hello to China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia (which we all know the Russian Government is run by the Russian mafia, and has no interest in the well-being of citizens), and other world nations that play into the world-wide game of cat-and-mouse. I really hope that with all of the afore mentioned problems working against the world, we truly are able to find a solution without resorting to genetic engineering, thinning the world population through war, and government issued drugs. I know that the world infrastructure is currently capable of sustaining the entire world population, but financial and beaurocracy issues prevent it from happening. The US alone produces enough extra vegetable goods to supply 2/3 of the world.

The technology we are exploring and building could bring about either scenario.

Exactly my point.

This is your post though and my intent is not to hijack/derail it. You have made some very valid points here.

You will not hijack it. You have posed some very relevant questions in opposition to my post. This is exactly what I wanted in this thread. I posted about my, greatly disturbing, visions of the future, and you have posted questions/rebuttals to my post. This is exactly what I want - intelliigent discussion.

I just wanted to say that with the darkness there will also be light. One would be irrelevent without the other.

A very good point, even when stripping the possible religious aspects from this (as I expect to see later in this thread). It has long been my belief, both secularly and spiritually, that good and evil eventually balance (even after remaining out of balance for years). With this point alone, there is hope for the human race, without ever delving into either of the scenarios I've outlined, either complete genetics/drug control, or slight unification coming out of a nuclear holocaust. I hope that this is the path the human race follows. Unfortunately, I cannot hold it to be the most likely course, given the news over the past decade or so.

I'm crossing my fingers and holding on to hope. I may be dashed in the end but living a life in despair would mean I was dashed from the beginning.

You and me both, friend. You and me both.

reply to post by obsidian468

You have such a bright outlook for World Peace. I did not explore the route you took to consider World Peace myself but yours is interesting. I figure the worlds main option is World Peace but this is not challenging to many nations to begin settlements & start exploring just where to begin a New World Peace since it may involve what I am exploring, Underwater development. The finances of some countries are just pawns, they would help if they would benefit in a great way, that is to build their economic goal in food service & homeland dev, if then is the first answer how they can manage life at the homeland better.

If mankind really set out to accomplish underwater life in submerged cities the idea for agriculture starts to spin out of control with serious consideration for those nations that have little agricultural area to develop at their homeland & thats why they need to participate. Learning every aspect of what happens is a good choice of options to alleviate boredom but would they want to do this. I explore the language problem, I see how the UN could make job opportunity available to many nations & they support the language service to adopt in the cities. I also see how energy can be derived, but there are a few undersea dangers which must match those dangers to either stop them or prevent them. Its truly not as expensive as going to the moon but it is expensive if you put dollar amounts on this challenge. Optimistism is the key to understanding what this means to the future more than what it means to the here & now of making it happen for the future. Really a independent operation, separated from govt as that must continue to provide for inland services however short changing that is since I see how creating a govt made to run on business bonding would work better than taxation, at least bonding gives to the concept that of investors rather than a tax program that must see those as a before scenario not separate. A Pay-As-You-Go service would work equally well if it did not address it minute by minute but on a basis of whenever during a time span like instead of one year then a two or three year arrangement. This would be Pay-As-You-Can during a two or three year scenario & require accounting so then following this extension run the account balance is totaled and the result overpaid determined & applied to the next time span without having to worry about payment for a long while, then if someone did not pay enough there amt owed is not required to pay but prorationed for the next time span & they must apply payment of a percentage of what prorated amount would be when they do make payments. Look at property tax issues, cities beneath oceans would have no such taxes, no allocating charts for living next to a fire hydrant versus not so living there makes your tax increase, same true with living next to a school or library taxes are higher yet this would not be a factor because theres no need to have any taxes. Just look at the laws & consider what is needed down there versus what is established up here inland & dry. There would be no subs maritime tax or such established. Tunnels would be created that have a added external shell which will create oxygen over time as rocks grow & this monorail tunnel idea measures the ocean as builders decide where to make another city & how to connect this to inland portals to go through them likened to catching a train & then shipping has offshore docking facilities without docks & can have storage beneath the surface using elevators that appear as flat surfaced subs & that interconnected to the monorail system on the bottom. All that actually makes a New World so why not consider a New World Peace Plan for everyone on earth. So theres wars, McCain says there will be more wars but meanwhile do what.

Click the: MySpace Blog

[edit on 2-2-2008 by OoTopNotchoO]

You want more info on what I perceive as a New World Peace Plan go to MySpace Blog and read My Blog Entry. I don't want to say people should throw there religion away but religious activity should be a lesser consideration when work and planning must succeed. In some ways if this is done the workers have plenty of time to consider their religion later on so its not making them into non-religious idiots, actually its preserving their rights in worship of their choice and I feel everyone needs to consider that much for this underwater city ideology to get done. Another thing is that this plan is not a military or government plan so this makes it separate of those and founding of Foundations is a serious consideration while knowing how government works we can see how business get their Tax Credits and I feel there needs to be lobby's formed to support business Tax credits so they can give to the cause and receive Tax Credits, this lowers their tax and they don't really lose anything but this then is applied to bonds and they can sell or ration bonds down the road, say Microsoft wanted to be bonded for implementing computers and programming, thats their option and truly a wise decision to not have to create a treasury for this to be a future objective. If the world encounters a disaster of great proportion because of meteors we will be prepared to make what hospital space is needed on the bottom of the ocean. We need not consider going beyond our capability. If nations considered this they could stockpile materials for this instead of nuclear stockpiles and then maybe America and Russia could decide to stop stockpiling nuclear weapons. The only thing I see in respect to a New World Government is that China has more Gold and more people than most nations and they have a new aerospace service and this would strengthen their interests in how they could provide their citizens inland with some smaller options and then maybe when they have decided to go at a peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world they will come around and offer their technology and work forces that are truly interested in success.

Politics is another matter of if and when this Underwater City Plan can complete before considering such, it may just happen as a result of tending to the workers needs, I view this as a supersized oil submerged rigging operation and it does make me wonder just how to go about accomplishing it.

This idea I have is not related to deep-sea construction, the Arctic Ocean or the Antarctic Ocean. I hope no one thinks otherwise.

There is a solution you have not mentioned so I'll do that now.

The solution is to perceive, at amplified levels, all the pain you create for others. This is why Near Death Experiences *COMPLETELY* transform people. It is the first time in thier lives they have -ever- felt the pain of anyone else other than themselves.

The solution is empathy.

Our genetics are so [F* ed] up that we don't have a chance in hell of our -entire- race reaching even a remedial level of empathy. It's just not going to happen through evolution.

The only way empathy will ever happen is through technology. Would the engineering types among us please propose, even in rarefied futuristic terms, of how technology might achieve this?

I'm listening.

P.S. Oddly enough I just posted about this very subject last night:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ATS4dummies

The singular genetics of mankind is like that while studies show genetics is the answer to our failing bodies needs. In a person that has a eye transplant the donor DNA must match so rejection of the eye or parts thereof does not happen. Eyes are a vital asset, cost of a injection just to keep a eye from dying is like $2,000 per injection and requires seven to ten during the year for several years while a transplant will reverse that costs, but transplant costs are to high right now, there is already a electronic eye ready to go into mass production and it has already been tested on humans and this problem is a meek beginning, within two years this new device will cause the Lasik surgeries to diminish and there could be a similar depression of their need because of their expensive education and their rejection of applying new methods they become expendable by country investors which don't want to import their equipment. Eye transplanting will take their place and it is that when you get old some chromosomes are damaged and they stop the cell production phase, yet with DNA theres hope to reverse that and genetics will be the guide for this. It is more painful to have the bill created by a lasik doctor over a two year period awaiting healing of your bad eye and the same manufacturer of the injection that Medicare approves because the FDA allows them to pay for a patients medical services also makes a cheaper injection which costs only $50 per injection and is required every three weeks so why is this happening, is it genetic playing a vital role in the expensive injection and not in the cheaper one.

Planning might could seek to establish support in a foundation for helping people whom have eyesight problems and this is why I feel this challenge is most important for humanity, what government can't do actually seems more feasible not having government manage the individuals. I also am concerned with Health Care and find the Democrat idea for fixing Health Care a to long down the road concept while the needs are primarily within the present tense. Click the same MySpace Blog and read its three entries.

reply to post by mrwupy

You might read My Blog, when you get to MySpace click My Blog to read it and see the hair raising off your neck.

Click Here to get to MySpace Blog