Is it good to NOT try to change the world? Have you given up yet?

guidetube
I agree with this to a point, I think we are screaming out for a better idea but its not just as easy as getting the idea out, there will or could be great opposition to a good idea for some.

I truly think we have to agree on principals before we can move forward> How we deal with Religion, Who make the laws> How we deal with the less fortunate in our societies and how much influence and credit? do we give to achievers.

Someone or somehow to get the publics opinion geographically and globally.
I think if you could get local achievers on board (like say freemasons, bankers, business men) then you might be able to have a go at higher level authority if they opposed.

It's not nearly that difficult, if you take a binary system and add a third idea you only need to convince 33.34% of people in absolute terms, and about 13% of people in practical terms. Getting the message out to about 2% of people will actually get it in public debates to spread. With a product rather than idea you need to reach considerably less.

I disagree with trying to perfect our existing concepts before creating new ones. There's always room for improvement, if we don't move in because of that imperfect system, we'll never move on.

Principals don't really need to align 100% because the idea is freedom. I can do what I want and you can do what you want. The only restriction is that while seeking out what we each want to do, we can't harm each other.

Why is religion something that needs to be dealt with in a country that allows freedom? You can practice your religion, and you can worship in your church. Someone else can do the same. Their only restriction is that when practicing their religion they can't harm another (no ritual sacrifice, jihad, or so on).

Dealing with the less fortunate is a bit more difficult of a question. How much of a safety net should the state provide is certainly a matter of debate. Instead why not frame the question in a different manner? Crime statistics have shown that if they have some minimum comforts in life (shelter, food, some entertainment... basic comforts) that they're far less likely to commit violent crime that strips them of their life, because they have something to live for. So the question actually becomes, should we spend money on preventing crime or only on restitution of the crime? This still invokes the freedom vs security debate (some of your money has been earmarked, reducing your freedom but in return you're safer) but it's oriented around what types of results we want in our society rather than ideological principals. Simple Democracy and some cost/benefit analysis can take it from there.

I don't know what you're getting at with achiever credit.

Theoretically next week everyone could agree to a temporary cease fire and mutual collaboration to build robot armies together and share the work load, to do all the basic work within 20-30 years to provide everyone in basic needs. All people of the world would get at least one shipping container as a selfsufficient home with everything including a computer and then the cease fire would end and everyone could shoot eachother in the virtual world, not the real one while others would work on resource gathering in space leading up to spacestations to ensure our survival. I don't care if it were called the New World Order as long as it's temporary and afterwards all nations revert back to their borders and culture.

How many people realize we are on a ball of dirt with an iron core as if it were a natural but steerless spaceship and are just lucky despite all the meteors and comets flying around, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes, dangerous insects, predators, diseases, famines, wars.