WHAT IS WE CANNOT IMPROVE THE WORLD WITHOUT KILLING?

If a mass extermination of boarding school children and people took place, would it still be wrong if it made a better world?

Would the end justify the means?

Or if a particular set of people were erradicated and the world was better would it be ok?

I ask this not because I think these things should be done, or that they seem right, BUT

WHAT IF THE ONLY ROUTE TO WORLD HARMONY AND LESS SUFFERING WAS BY KILLING A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE.

Maybe those born rich?
Or those that have been proven to be corrupt?

What do we do if we even prove that the only way to have the world we want is by mass genocide.

There is some proof that this is true. We as a species are more intelligent than we once were. WHY?
Because of evolution SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

Which does not mean society as human structured as animals in packs
all start at the same status THE LOWEST.

They move up based on achievement. THEY ONLY BECOME THE ALPHA IF THEY DESERVE IT.

Maybe society works like this? Maybe it can only be improved my the slaughter of people or civilizations.

If this is true then mass gennocide in the past and obliteration of civilizations will have had positive long term advantages.

Do we choose between things being as they are(Hell for many) Or make it Hell for all and turn the world into eventual nirvava.

So, you want/need an excuse to murder.

It's called justification. Serial killers are great with that.

You know when you cut your grass and you also chop those damn dandelions?

Well they are back the next morning. You may very well kill a group of people, but whatever ideologies and belief they had will reappear.

Ideas are like creatures from another dimension that come back from time to time. Nothing you can do there.

Try to enjoy your life and appreciate the wonders of differences.

Maybe the only way to improve society is to kill the poor or less fortunate as they are slowing the rest of us down.

Yah..that sounds as horrible and ridiculous as your killing the rich..

werewolf99
Maybe those born rich?

The problem I have with this are people that think just because you are rich you are somehow less noble then a poor person.

It's BS and really sad.

Their are horrible people in every walk of life..It's just socially accepted for some people to assume that money=govt shill or bad person and to that I say, cool story. Not living check to check is great and I will bet you anything that a family struggling to provide for their kids would trade places in a second with a rich family.

werewolf99
If a mass extermination of boarding school children and people took place, would it still be wrong if it made a better world?

Would the end justify the means?

Or if a particular set of people were erradicated and the world was better would it be ok?

I ask this not because I think these things should be done, or that they seem right, BUT

WHAT IF THE ONLY ROUTE TO WORLD HARMONY AND LESS SUFFERING WAS BY KILLING A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE.

Maybe those born rich?
Or those that have been proven to be corrupt?

What do we do if we even prove that the only way to have the world we want is by mass genocide.

There is some proof that this is true. We as a species are more intelligent than we once were. WHY?
Because of evolution SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

Which does not mean society as human structured as animals in packs
all start at the same status THE LOWEST.

They move up based on achievement. THEY ONLY BECOME THE ALPHA IF THEY DESERVE IT.

Maybe society works like this? Maybe it can only be improved my the slaughter of people or civilizations.

If this is true then mass gennocide in the past and obliteration of civilizations will have had positive long term advantages.

Do we choose between things being as they are(Hell for many) Or make it Hell for all and turn the world into eventual nirvava.

If you believe in God, then it doesn't matter because God will step in and save the world when he thinks it is time. If you believe in evolution as the means by which we arrived here then you must accept the ultimate goal of evolution is extinction of an entire genetic group in favour of a genetic group better suited to the environment they live in (survival of the fittest as you put it).

Whichever way you look at it we will all die off one way or another anyway. My advice is sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.

The source, of course is the Animality, or Humanity, if you prefer can not "progress" without the erasure of any idea or belief system that is different than that of the Collective.

Thus, in the Order of things, belief is at the top of the list, well belief and greed, neither of which "we're" desiring to be challenged with "new" thinking or "old", as well.

Sometimes the white rabbit leads most to a source of existing without killing, but the gray rabbit. . .now that's a whole new game.

eh?

But nobody is answering my question everyone is evading it. Why is it unlikely that something we want and have been unable to get could not only achieved by bad. I would say that any solution to the worlds complex problems would be complicated and so some of it is bound to mean unfairly killing people or destroying civilizations.

If we simply take that any solution can be either good of itself as a course of action plasing the outcome to one side, or bad of itself, then surely there is a 50 50 chance.

It's self-destructive.

That's what it is.

Who decides what the greater good is? Who decides who gets pruned and who gets fed and watered? If it was possible to murder the world to harmony we'd be in paradise by now. Enough people have already tried to create paradise with the blade or bullet, it doesn't work.

You cant have a perfect society because we are imperfect. All of us, flawed in different ways. Whats needed is not a way of removing some of us but a system by which we can manage our imperfections.

We've been working on that problem a long time by trial and error. Thus far the least bad system we have yet come up with involves the rule of law, independent 3rd party justice and the engine of the free market (restrained by the wagon train of some form of social compact).

By and large the places where you would actually want to live have some form of the above.The problems are where one or more of them is broken or the balance is wrong.

Its the wealth created by this that has allowed the overall improvements in health, stature and other attributes that you mention. We live easier lives with better nutrition and better stimulation from birth. Its worth noting that the poorest among the developed nations lives a life of luxury undreamt of a few centuries ago.

There is no 'solution' to humanity beyond muddling through with diplomacy and compromise, messy and unsatisfactory as that is. No pogrom or program that will make it all better. We are an ongoing exercise in damage limitation.

I think I can see what you're saying from the perspective of an evolutionary advantage gained by the genocide of a less "advanced" culture. I compare it to the theory that the Neanderthal man was eventually driven to extinction by the "modern" Cro-Magnon man. More recently we have the extinction and near extinction of "primitive" native cultures due to contact with the "advanced" Europeans.

The problem IMO is that cultures who have some advantage over others will use it to dominate or exterminate any competing cultures, even if that advantage is nothing more than attitude.

ETA: Perhaps a bad attitude is an evolutionary move forward, although it seems to me to be more about a competitive advantage than an evolutionary one

If, however, you are talking about something else, my comments here are not relevant to your main point.

We'll always have problems in the world because what's good for individuals, and what makes individuals happy is not always the best thing for humanity as a whole.

A simple thing like having babies, which is a basic human drive and a cherished expression of human love, is a horrible, horrible thing for humanity if it goes unchecked. If you can't get people to volunteer not to breed, then eventually nature will take over with pandemics and shortages of fresh water and food that will cause millions of people to die horribly.

What to do?

opethPA
Maybe the only way to improve society is to kill the poor or less fortunate as they are slowing the rest of us down.

Yah..that sounds as horrible and ridiculous as your killing the rich..

werewolf99
Maybe those born rich?

The problem I have with this are people that think just because you are rich you are somehow less noble then a poor person.

It's BS and really sad.

Their are horrible people in every walk of life..It's just socially accepted for some people to assume that money=govt shill or bad person and to that I say, cool story. Not living check to check is great and I will bet you anything that a family struggling to provide for their would trade places in a second with a rich family.

edit on 2013pAmerica/Chicago3107ppm by opethPA because: (no reason given)

With money would surely come power and what have the rich done with their power? F#cked up eveything and made themselves more money.

Is that really a noble way of going on? Anyway what is noble about cronyism? Like it not which evenr way you cut it, the rich are very corrupt. Their wealth has corrupted them or
more likely their elite education produces corrupt people. This is why politicians are corrupt.
Wherever you go you find that politicians are usually born rich.

I know this goes against your american dream. But right now it is just a dream. Just as it is everywhere else.

opethPA
Maybe the only way to improve society is to kill the poor or less fortunate as they are slowing the rest of us down.

Yah..that sounds as horrible and ridiculous as your killing the rich..

werewolf99
Maybe those born rich?

The problem I have with this are people that think just because you are rich you are somehow less noble then a poor person.

It's BS and really sad.

Their are horrible people in every walk of life..It's just socially accepted for some people to assume that money=govt shill or bad person and to that I say, cool story. Not living check to check is great and I will bet you anything that a family struggling to provide for their would trade places in a second with a rich family.

edit on 2013pAmerica/Chicago3107ppm by opethPA because: (no reason given)

With money would surely come power and what have the rich done with their power? F#cked up eveything and made themselves more money.

Is that really a noble way of going on? Anyway what is noble about cronyism? Like it not which evenr way you cut it, the rich are very corrupt. Their wealth has corrupted them or
more likely their elite education produces corrupt people. This is why politicians are corrupt.
Wherever you go you find that politicians are usually born rich.

I know this goes against your american dream. But right now it is just a dream. Just as it is everywhere else.

werewolf99
With money would surely come power and what have the rich done with their power? F#cked up eveything and made themselves more money.

Is that really a noble way of going on? Anyway what is noble about cronyism? Like it not which evenr way you cut it, the rich are very corrupt. Their wealth has corrupted them or
more likely their elite education produces corrupt people. This is why politicians are corrupt.
Wherever you go you find that politicians are usually born rich.

I know this goes against your american dream. But right now it is just a dream. Just as it is everywhere else.

Against my American dream? Because having financial stability isn't the dream of most people all over the world.

Again being poor doesn't make you more noble anymore then having money makes you a criminal.
Poor people steal, rape, kill just like rich people steal, rape and kill.

opethPA

Again being poor doesn't make you more noble anymore then having money makes you a criminal.
Poor people steal, rape, kill just like rich people steal, rape and kill.

Same means with a different end, though.

Poor criminals often kill and steal to eat and have shelter.

Rich criminals often kill and steal to watch the digits in their bank account rise.

Either way, when we're talking about "the rich" in terms of who is the problem, it's not about how much money they have but rather how they got it. Look at Zuckerberg for example -- the biggest corporate mogul of this millennium and he made billions by blatantly and admittedly stealing an idea. Worship him in the next issue of Forbes; Lord of the Douches strictly monetizing more and more every quarter.

TheRegal

Poor criminals often kill and steal to eat and have shelter.

Rich criminals often kill and steal to watch the digits in their bank account rise.

Ahh and here i was thinking killing and stealing was illegal regardless of who does it..
I bet you the victims would take comfort in knowing that you distinguish the two.

Either way, when we're talking about "the rich" in terms of who is the problem,

I respectfully disagree. The problem are the people looking for an easy way in life, the people willing to kill someone to better their own standing. The people willing to steal from someone so they have more..

Rich and poor do both of those things.

reply to post by Jefferton


So are the so-called leaders and captains of industry.

Todays social engineering consists of nurturing the socio-pathology we are currently at odds with.

If the world wasn't filled with sociopaths trying to "win" everything, where would humanity be?

Probably content within our own skin.