Unity of the Species through Totalitarian Rule

reply to post by DAZ21


My post went over your head, I'm sorry.

reply to post by Carreau


Hahaha, no it didn't I missed the part where you said selective breeding.

And the word you're looking for is eugenics. Anyway apart from that I stick to what I said, if you believe It's that easy to accomplish then you're not quite up to the standard of real life intellectuals.

Sorry to be harsh, but you made it personal.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Dear Krazysh0t,

I really admire what you're doing with this thread, and I think your idea is very attractive. I hope it works out well.

I'm a little worried about some of the alternatives to your ideas. Probably my biggest worry is that we end up in a "Slave World," as North Korea is a "Slave Nation." Freedom House, which posts the most relied on statistics for freedom in the world, has noted that world freedom has declined in each of the last seven years. I hope we don't end up like China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran, but I don't know how that trend will be reversed.

It's possible that each group currently on earth will get their own planet to colonize, but we'll need a lot of planets. The first thing we'd have to do is quarantine each planet, nothing in or out. If one planet got its hands on interstellar flight, every other planet would be at their mercy.

Some groups would die out, either through natural or man-made disasters. Islam split up early on into Shiite and Suni factions, which are currently engaged in wiping each other out. I expect the same would happen anywhere dissenting opinions were allowed.

Will people want to sacrifice their lives in the hope of finding new planets to colonize? Maybe, but does our population show any interest in self-sacrifice now? Or are we all self-centered, thinking no further into the future than our children. (If we think of anyone else at all.) It might happen, though. But as a test, I couldn't think of a large number of senior citizens interested in reducing Social Security benefits to ensure the program remains solvent for future generations. Maybe, if we get crowded enough, and have enough despair, the motivation might not be to spread mankind, maybe it would be to get away from Earth.

I would be sad if we ever met an intelligent alien race. Mankind doesn't have a history of peaceful co-existence. What would we do if they didn't need our social planners and commissars, or our advertising men, or missionaries, or factories? What if they struck us as backward savages? Would we try to change them? Would we be the serpent in their garden of Eden? I'd rather we die off than bear that guilt.

With respect,
Charles1952

Really, the only thing that ever needs to be illegal is exploitation, think about it. We don't need a massive government for that.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Sahabi

 

Yes, this is what I was getting at. Humans just don't have the desire to advance themselves or work together towards bettering the species. It is always about me me me. It doesn't become an issue until the problem is slapping them in the face. Then they the person looks around helplessly as no one else cares about their plight. When people have this attitude towards the small things, we must recognize that they won't care about the larger things affecting us.

However, most of the negativity you associate with mankind in this thread is largely engineered and conditioned by those of wealth and influence that seek the totalitarian agenda.

When you say that modern mankind is in need of totalitarian rule because we are divided, wasteful, greedy, apathetic, lack the desire to advance ourselves, and do not work together to better our species,.... you are failing to take into consideration "why" we are collectively this way today.

Problem is artificially created ---> Reaction ---> Solution is presented by those who created the problem


A small group divides us with media and propaganda (divide and conquer). A small group conditions in us extreme ego-selfishness and materialism. A small group keeps us ignorant of relevant things and distracts us with superficialities.

If this "small group of elites" is instigating all of the negativity that you attribute to mankind, why then do you endorse them to rule by tyranny and oppression?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


If there was an agenda to spread love, unity, freedom, compassion, empathy, and understanding on the same scale as the "negative" agendas,... and after a massive and world-wide agenda of "positivity" failed to change the state of the individual person and society at large,.... then a totalitarian rule would appear to be a possible solution.

However, this "small group of elites" that you refer to is endorsing "negative" agendas and campaigns. We do not need their rule. They need our downfall in order to rule.

Peace.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


The answer may be just the contrary, like the Internet, decentralization and sharing of power. Another step is multiple representative offices. Like you vote for someone that votes for someone above, I do truly think that voting directly to select the president (and other top layers) is at the root of the present evil, that and the long terms, in such a stratified voting process keeping a political office will enable people to change functions each 6 months and really focus in serving the people...

reply to post by Sahabi


Interesting point you bring up here. Yet, these same few people or people like them have been doing this for centuries. How do we go about uprooting these people and installing the people who would promote world unity and peace? We must remember that power has a large corrupting influence on people. How do we know that the people that we install to take their place are the right people and if they are can they remain true to themselves? I think what I'm trying to get to is the root of human nature. Are species is a violent, controlling one. If I was an alien observing human behavior I would come to the conclusion that humans are naturally violent and it would take a conscious effort to actually be peaceful and play nice with others, especially if the people are positions of power.

reply to post by charles1952


Well control of this scale hasn't been attempted yet. There have been many civilizations that have tried to rule the world in the past, none of succeeded. Eventually every empire has gotten too big to maintain itself and falls apart. There are just too many differing opinions, wants, and needs from the peoples of different areas of the world. This obstacle is one of the few left in the way of human society being completely dominated. If you think rationally about it, in order to undertake the ruling of the world the elite would almost HAVE to completely subjugate the rest of the population in order to achieve a stable united empire. Force the people's thinking to be united for a few generations until it is ingrained into them.

I make no compromises here in this idea, this would be a very dark time for humanity. The majority of the population would be in horrid living and working conditions for a long time. It is a very scary future indeed. Yet when looking at it, one can only hope that it allows us to breech the barrier that is our atmosphere and escape this planetary prison.

I also feel that with the elites trying to control the whole world, that they'd be working against a clock here too. As a natural consequence of ruling the world they will be ruling over the people who harvest resources or produce things that the world's population needs to work. The ruling elite would have a hard time keeping a middle class from forming. And we all know that middle classes have desires and wants. Sure certain parts of the world could end up like N. Korea, but others could end up prospering. But as long as the world is united everything can be funneled towards a common goal. So the ruling elite (provided they weren't short sighted and wanted to maintain their rule) would have to seek answers outside our planet.

The only real way unity would have occurred is through empowering people, in communities, without slavery, learning how to contribute from their talents, sharing all the resources and technology in an open source, patent to the people way, akin to the Venus Project, with people taking turns in councils and learning different grass roots levels of management with really high educations.

Abundance flowing out to others. Empowerment flowing out to others. Truth and Transparency.

As for the fascist way of unity. Would rather there was no uniting then. We'll never go under the tyranny of immature, tiny little evil things that like to dominate others and talk themselves into believing they're serving the Good as catalysts. Rather be wrong on my own than under a supposed Good tyranny, that by its actions is the universes worst murderers.

If you don't give up power over others and slavery, and murder and find your heart again and dust it off, and start to get things truly, the universal school and what is really about, progressing consciousness and love/understanding, then you don't get to evolve as a unified race. If you don't do it with love, and sharing, freedom, empowerment of others, and work from the bottom up upgrading, you don't get to evolve. You have FAILED THE TEST. Those who go to the front of the lineup will be sent to the back.

The Universe already has too many deathstars and Darth Vader races out there, but they don't get far. They're kind of stuck at the bottom. Imagine that, try for the top of the pyramid and get stuck at the bottom because they don't know what evolving consciousness means.

You always evolve a system from the bottom up, in equality and freedom. If you have resources, and think you're ahead of the game with your intellect and positioning, you stand back, and instead of forcing humanity into your grooves ,you teach and empower the bottom up and watch it evolve with the good example and benevolence of others, sharing and caring, and learn from them.

Which is better in your mind: remaining a short-sighted divided society and our species dying a slow painful death as we use up the last of our resources and space to live, only to devolve into mindless fighting and self-destruction or total rule of a few over the whole of our population towards the betterment of the species?

Your posture is that we are a short-sighted, divided society dying a slow painful death as we use up the last of our resources. From that standpoint, there is no good option that doesn't include some forced human hegemony.

Of course, there are other platforms from which to begin... one being that our divisions are intentional by way of polarizing indoctrination so that such a view as yours can be milked and then used to create the forced melding. Had this not been inflicted, we may not be so divided and given the right amount of time... humanity could someday naturally evolve into that unified world.

One angle this can be seen is by imagining a species that has been genetically manipulated so that it skips a long period of natural evolution to arrive at a preferred point. The problem is... that when nature is set aside and an unnatural path is applied, the outcome may not be what one expects... or hopes for.

By forcing our world into some artificial form of homogenized gathering, the outcome may be far worse than the reason it was inflicted to begin with.

As for all the world's resources going away and the wholesale distribution of negativity? That too, might well blend itself into the natural path of human evolution if left to find its own way.

Finally, one thing that is as clear as anything in human history is that our species cannot be trusted to hold total dominion over itself without a means to an oversight that keeps the worst of our natural failings in check. The problem is that with a single world government, there is no such means... not even foreign shores to escape to in order to begin again.

Unity of the species through totalitarian rule? Only over several billion dead bodies.