0
2

[–] SaneGoatiSwear 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

"not suck so bad" seems like a good start...

0
0

[–] Bilbo_Swaggins 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is a difficult task when the goal of other people is to have your stuff.

Other people do not think this way, and they will take advantage of you as long as you do.

We live in a Malthusian world wherein zero sum games are played from time to time regardless of what you think of it. Is it right? Not really. But it's real.

0
0

[–] popezandy [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You sound just like the people who said voting third party was a waste of a vote because it'll never happen. Isn't the point of idealism that we strive to attain some lofty goal and advance society in meaningful ways along the course of that journey? Sure, there's Malthusian interests run amok, but there are also the millions of people in this country who can sidestep those interests and see the bigger picture and the larger good. The global connection of all people increases the possibility for all ideas to rise to the top, not just the shitty ones. Isn't it up to us to choose that path and take it? Or are we all just satisfied with complaining until we've lost the game?

0
0

[–] Bilbo_Swaggins 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Other people don't think this way and never will. You're thinking about Anglos without a lick of tribalism anywhere in their minds. Other races are biologically different. Hispanics do not care about the best interests of Whites or Blacks, Blacks do not care about Whites and Hispanics, etc.

Whensoever they believe that they can gain from initiating a zero sum game with you, they will always do so. Individuals may not, but groups always will.

The only path to success is winning every zero sum game you can.

0
0

[–] JasonEsh 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

In my opinion yes, but the way to go about it is very complex (obviously) and doesn't exactly fit your criteria. In the most abstract sense, for every individual it will be to be as moral as they possibly can. Simply to "do good" to the best of their ability and understanding.

But, you're asking about a specific goal, so I'll suggest this: organizing our societies in a way that promotes and facilitates this effort of individuals on a grand scale. The best way to do this right now, I believe, is to foster the development of voluntary social structures. Specifically, to allow people to associate freely among those with whom they agree, leading to a sort of "cultural-selection" of ideas.

0
1

[–] popezandy [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think the internet currently is that forum of discussion, but perhaps there should be a more global academic arena for that sort of thing. A forum which is reviewed by groups within national governments, curated by scholars, and discussed by both the common man and scholars alike, with an explicit and absolute mission statement, the cultural selection of ideas.

0
0

[–] JasonEsh 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

While people can share their ideas on the Internet, there exists no mechanism that selects for the best ones. What is selected for instead are ideas that are literally good simply at spreading, regardless of merit. To select for good ideas, you need to give people the freedom to pursue the ideas they believe to be right, without being forced to participate within the ideas of others with whom they disagree. Some might choose to hold such a forum, sure, but they may not realize how bad of an idea (for example) communism is until they test it out.

Voluntary association is key. In democracies, the individual is swept up by the whims of the mob.

0
0

[–] Thetiedyeguy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You're a bit naive about people in general wanting to work for the betterment of mankind. That's the reason multiculturalism is failing, western cultures that have developed in plentiful peaceful times evolved ideals like freedom, altruism and equality and are not exposed to anything to challenge those ideas. With that sentiment they extend welcomes to people from countries where their cultures evolved in war, starvation, exploitation and fear, they generally don't hold the same ideals and become parasites on the societies built by western nations and create monocultural slums where they don't have to learn a new language or assimilate into the host culture. Sure it would be great to have a unified human goal, but in practice it's better if every country looks after themselves and works together in charitable and scientific ventures, globalisation isn't working. The only way we could have a unified humanity is if there was a worldwide single culture or dictatorship.

0
0

[–] popezandy [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I was talking more along the lines of an agreed upon goal among the population or of several governments. I'm not trying to assume that everybody only wants peace, that's an idiotic assumption. What I am asking is whether the hyper connectivity of our race has opened channels for a universal glorious mission? Another way to ask it would be, given the current global situation, is humanity wasting it's existence? Are we progressing?