|
Post by Ryan on Mar 21, 2010 23:49:49 GMT -5
I'm interested to hear what everyone's views are on the subject. DEBATE! (My views will be posted in the project thread here, my explanation will be posted here later)
|
|
|
Post by dandelions8910 on Mar 22, 2010 0:06:09 GMT -5
I think that were it possible to have a perfect world, we could live in it. But it is impossible to create/maintain a perfect world. In order for there to be a perfect world, there has to be some ignorance as to what one can achieve. Because, obviously, perfection has no failure. and when we try to achieve, often, we fail. I'm not saying failure is bad...it's quite good if you take it the right way but I digress. For a world to be perfect, we would have to rid it of all disease, suffering, and sadness. We can probably get petty far on the disease and suffering part, if humans weren't so...human. and selfish. But, it is my opinion that you cannot have happiness without sadness. If you've never been sad, how do you know what happy feels like? If you've only ever had happiness, you don't know that there is anything other than it. And therefore it would be considered normal. Also, like i said, humans are human. Therefore even when we grow up in wonderful homes with loving and supportive families, we can still want something more. Even when there is not logical trigger for it, some people wind up depressed. It's the way it works. Even if we had a perfect world around us, would we be satisfied? I do not think so.
EDIT: Oh, and I see there is a bit of disparity between my last sentence and my first. yes, i think we could live in it were it possible for us to create one. but no, we ourselves would not be perfect.
|
|
|
Post by dandelions8910 on Mar 22, 2010 0:07:52 GMT -5
Besides, who decides what perfect is?
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 22, 2010 0:25:30 GMT -5
I agree with Dandelions but I will add one thing. Perfection is often seen as an ideal, all good no bad, but honestly what is good without bad? A world of only good would eventually create indifference towards that world by its inhabitants (assuming that they are human of course). I think what makes life and this world so great is the balance between the two, and I genuinely believe that nothing is inherently good or bad, that it is all the perspective of the individual. And I know that this is somewhat Nihilistic, but I honestly don't feel that it is necessarily a bad thing, because it allows the individual to decide what they want life to be. And in this sense I feel that the world we live in now is a "perfect world" because it is the only world I can conceive of that allows one to really live (of course it is impossible for me to know what life in a "world without bad" would be like).
EDIT: I should add a few things so I don't sound like I'm contradicting myself. Firstly, I don't believe things are naturally good or bad, but I think it is human nature to view things in terms of what's good and what's bad. So based on this a world of only good wouldn't be ideal because people would either find things to view as bad (defeating the purpose of a perfect world), or they would have to lose that natural part of them views the world in those terms, and I would argue that that would make them indifferent robots and not humans.
|
|
bleabot
Moon
Set phazors to dance, Mr. Warf.
Posts: 109
|
Post by bleabot on Mar 22, 2010 20:36:52 GMT -5
Perfection isn't a possible state of being, it's a destination. If anyone is familiar with precalculus/calculus lingo, then recall infinite limits. You can approach infinity, but it's not a number; it's just something that can be approached. That's how I see perfection. You can always work toward perfection and yeah, eventually you can be pretty close, but there will always be room to get a little bit better and that much more perfect.
With that said, I also believe perfection is subjective, just like good and evil. My version of perfection will be dramatically different from, say, Osama bin Laden's or Adolph Hitler's versions...heck, I'm sure my perfection is different from Ghandi's perfection as well. It's an unreachable goal that is different for everyone -- the most perfect infinite limit imaginable.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 22, 2010 20:37:12 GMT -5
To further the debate in attempts to help me with ideas...
What should be encompassed in what we hope to achieve? if you agree with me in saying that the world is not meant to be perfect, then what should our goal be? Where should we be heading?
|
|
Mira
Meteorite
Rawr
Posts: 17
|
Post by Mira on Mar 23, 2010 6:39:55 GMT -5
Perfect- Without flaws, defects, and shortcomings. Well, in order for the world to be without flaw, wouldn't every single person, out of the almost 7 billion people on this planet, have to be without flaw? And I'm positive not all of those people could not have any problems with health. As a society, the thing is, is that we'll probably have always something to argue about, people who discriminate, and people with conflicting ideas. And to be frank, I think a perfect world, if there was a true description of it, would be flat out boring. Because I think our flaws are what make us perfectly unique. Living in a world without flaw? It would be like going to school, work, or college with no wrong answers or problems to fix. Well, I could ramble more but, my next point. RyanI think our ultimate goal(It's certainly mine) should be trying to make ourselves and others happy and enjoy life while you still have it.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 23, 2010 10:20:54 GMT -5
What should the balance between making ourselves and others happy? Surely there are people who are very happy in this world, but they got there by exploiting others and making others unhappy. Surely there are those who are unhappy but only because of what they did in their own lives. Surely there are those who are happy and didn't affect anybody else's life. What's the healthy balance?
I would think that exploiting others would be out, but at the same time, isn't not affecting anyone else, equally out if we are striving in our ultimate goal to make not only ourselves but others happy?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 23, 2010 15:41:01 GMT -5
The world is only perfect when Chuck Norris says it is. But seriously, the world will never be perfect as long as people like this exist: Once people like that are gone, we might have a chance at bettering the world without them hindering progress.
|
|
richie
Meteorite
Jackie xx
Posts: 34
|
Post by richie on Mar 23, 2010 15:50:11 GMT -5
Gotta agree with Alex. Got many friends who are gay, These homophobe peeps make my blood boil, specially as im one of the most left-wing, modern people out In answer to the question: SHIRT, I don't know. Perhaps in a very distant future. A good chance, however, really seems like the fastest way to get rid of the bad parts of society would be to turn our world into something like 1984. And thats something that really does not need to happen. Division is perhaps the biggest problem in our world (Excluding diseas, cancer etc) I can't help but think some soft-communism could help, Not full on Lenin Communism, Just something that could get everyone a little closer to true equality. Just my ''two cents'' as you say P.S: I kinda liked that quote in that one Will SMith movie, can't remeber which. But it was talking about the decleration of independance and it went soemthing like ''I always liked how is said in the PURSUIT of happiness. As If happiness is something we can only pursue, and never truly own'' P.P.S: Do forgive if I have made any grammar / english mistakes I am slowly but surley forgettign my mother tounge of english. Peace n Love xxxx
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on Mar 23, 2010 15:51:45 GMT -5
This is a very interesting thread, but I am wondering if anyone here has ever read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn?
In this book a gorilla tells people how humans should live, and as of now, no one is listening. Yes I know it is an absurd thought, but if you read the book, the gorilla makes a lot of sense. I currently own the book and I am looking to lend it to someone responsible. SO, I will post here what Ishmael posted in a newspaper, when he was looking for someone to teach. He wanted to teach them how to save the world:
Teacher seeks pupil. Must have earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person.
I know it sounds absurd, but things like overpopulation, over exploitation of ourselves, our resources, and most importantly, the species on this earth which cant defend themselves against us, can all be solved. But before coming up with solutions to change the world, we need to change our minds and how we view the world.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 23, 2010 17:34:58 GMT -5
Do continue discussion on this, I'm using these ideas and arguments and counter arguments to write my book (see the project thread link posted in the first post for more info). The point I'm making in the book is something very similar to what jmejia has said was the meaning of Ishmael, a book I will now go and read.
More things to think about: If the world is going to change for the better, which change should be made first?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 23, 2010 17:43:44 GMT -5
I have a short answer: If the world were perfect, what would be left to do? That'd be boring as tar!
Which doesn't mean it's impossible, of course, just that I don't see perfection as a goal.
Improvement, however, is an excellent goal. A good starting point would be encouragement of free thought (as opposed to dogma of any nature -- especially political), and a good starting point of that would be working to bring the media back to a neutral perspective. (On that point, however, I don't know where to begin.)
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on Mar 23, 2010 17:49:14 GMT -5
Do continue discussion on this, I'm using these ideas and arguments and counter arguments to write my book (see the project thread link posted in the first post for more info). The point I'm making in the book is something very similar to what jmejia has said was the meaning of Ishmael, a book I will now go and read. More things to think about: If the world is going to change for the better, which change should be made first? This is easy. The world will never change for the better unless someone takes action to change the way people THINK. Now everyone thinks about life in ways they were conditioned to think about life. Through the spectacles of historical/capitalistic/religious eyes. We need a paradigm shift were we don't see life in terms of money, god, or peoples history. We need to think about things in terms of LIFE ITSELF. How do my actions contribute to life on earth??? Once people think in these very simple terms we can then ask, what actions can make life on earth better!
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on Mar 23, 2010 18:01:34 GMT -5
I have a short answer: If the world were perfect, what would be left to do? That'd be boring as tar! Which doesn't mean it's impossible, of course, just that I don't see perfection as a goal. Improvement, however, is an excellent goal. A good starting point would be encouragement of free thought (as opposed to dogma of any nature -- especially political), and a good starting point of that would be working to bring the media back to a neutral perspective. (On that point, however, I don't know where to begin.) Hm this is an interesting point. I completely agree with the encouragement of free thought. Without this all plans to make the world better, and to save the world, are doomed. However when dealing with superpowers which actively work to censure free thought (countries such as China, and what they have done to censure the internet, and their crimes against Tibet are an example of this), it becomes very difficult to proliferate openness, honesty, and freedom of expression/thought. It is also difficult when the thought is racist, or alienating. We want free thought, but not the thought that YOUR religion is better than hers, or that your culture is superior to theirs. Free thought is a part of it, but it comes with the caveat that while your thoughts can be shared, and openly expressed, they should not be imposed upon others. As for the media being neutral, I completely agree, but it is difficult to be neutral. People aren't neutral. So if I felt strongly about a news story I was reporting but was forced to be neutral, I would need an outlet to express my non-neutrality, other than the news. However the media has a constantly changing, amorphous life of its own. In the beginning there were newspapers, then radio, and television, then cable television (which is different because now the news is on 24/7), and then the new internet version of media. This latter version includes blogs, youtube, as well as all the old versions of media adapting to the new media. In short, people will (generally speaking) seek the media that suits their views. The republicans and Tea party members run to Fox news, while the liberal democrats run to MSNBC, while the entertainment junkies run to E! and WhatTheBuck. To say we need a neutral media is opposite of saying we need freedom of thought. In a perfect world, everybodies views and expressions will be put on the table for open debate and scrutiny. And it will be up to the individual to decide what truth is superior, and which one works for this. Internet sites such as youtube, and forums such as pogotribe are instrumental to bringing the (left leaning?, or is it uber-conservative) media back into equilibrium. We will see in the end who wins, although I know the answer already (hehehe)
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 23, 2010 18:35:51 GMT -5
I think the problem is that because people only consume the media that sends the same message they already have, they never really see the other side of the story, and that's where neutrality is important. If Republicans only ever watched Fox News, how would they ever be able to see the other views and decide which truth is "superior". What we have now isn't deciding what is superior, it's merely sticking to the view you already had first place. That's why I think it's important that every mass media broadcaster strive for more neutrality than they currently have. I'm not saying they have to be perfectly neutral, which is probably impossible anyway. But before giving their opinion on which side is right, they should at least make it a point to explain both sides of the story rather than preaching to the viewer which side is right. (And in particular the mudslinging needs to stop.) Because the fact is that the best answer usually lies somewhere between the two political views rather than solely on one side or the other, and it is therefore vital for consumers of mass media to be shown both sides of the coin prior to any discourse regarding which side of the coin is "right" or "wrong". (As for a left versus right bias, both exist, although Fox News is sometimes so wild in their views that they make the right imbalance seem greater than it is. From a Canadian perspective, you guys barely even have a left wing. ) Edit: I suppose my point is this: Opinions from both sides are totally fine and welcome, but it's vital for the platform itself to be neutral. TV is a neutral platform, but individual channels aren't necessarily. Fox is not a neutral platform -- consumers only hear conservative views from there. MSNBC I assume is similar except for liberal views. I think it's important that the channels, at least in their role as a platform for news, become more neutral and welcome opinions from both sides, and then only after the base facts of the situation are presented. It's similar to how the Internet is a neutral platform, as are these forums, but there are some sites that are useless for such discourse as their members are too biased to have a real discussion on both sides of an issue with. It's not okay for one channel to balance out another, because most people will only get their news (TV-wise at least) from a single source. If a channel is going to include opinion, it must include all opinions (or at least as wide a spread of them as is reasonable). Hosting opinions entirely from one side of a debate only is biased and leaves a lot of people without the opportunity to truly think about the issue from an objective stance.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Mar 23, 2010 23:25:23 GMT -5
i personally believe that each and every person has an almost limitless capacity for change. as such i believe that we CAN indeed live in a perfect world. granted it may take a lot of work, and many many years, however it CAN happen. anyone who says otherwise is in my opinion just giving in to their feelings of pessimism, and laziness. true change is difficult. extremely difficult, but it can be done with proper motivation and fortitude, and individually each person on the planet is capable of such change. moreover. once there becomes enough of a movement for personal change, social change can happen. communities as a whole can change. and it could keep blossoming, and growing, as the communities grow larger. and as the communities grow larger, they draw in more communities, and help them change for the better. it can happen.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Mar 23, 2010 23:26:37 GMT -5
The world is only perfect when Chuck Norris says it is. But seriously, the world will never be perfect as long as people like this exist: Once people like that are gone, we might have a chance at bettering the world without them hindering progress. by the way...let that not be a reflection of people in general. such people can be changed as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 24, 2010 15:20:26 GMT -5
Ok time for my view.
Argument against humans living in a perfect world as a species: Humans are fundamentally flawed (we are human ergo we make mistakes). In order to live in a perfect world, the denizens of said world must be perfect, which we are not, so we cannot live in a perfect world.
Argument against humans living in a perfect world as a society: For a society to be perfect it must have achieved the ultimate perfect goal of the society, or be in a state in which there is no better societal structure. This means that every member of the society must fulfill an ultimate role in that society. There is no choice in this role, if a member of a society has a role, they must fill it and can fill no other role for it will disrupt the societal structure and cause a imbalance resulting in an imperfection. Think of it like a crystal, if the perfect society were compared to a crystal, then every piece would fit perfectly, it could go in no other place, for if it did, there would be two pieces filling one role, and 1 empty slot. One might argue against this, saying that two members of the society could subsequently switch roles. This would work if the switch were always seamless, which as an imperfect species, would be impossible, so the argument holds. Another counter-argument would be that as a society, we could reach such a crystalline form. If this were possible, then every member of the society would have to work together in perfect unison, i.e. think as a collective. One of the evolutionary aspects of mammals is that they do not think as a collective, their brains suggest that they should follow certain patterns of thought (protecting their young/families). If we evolve past the point of being mammals, then it is possible that this is possible.
When I came to the conclusion that we as humans could never live in a perfect world, I also realized that we shouldn't stop striving for improvement, but rather strive for as close to perfect as humanly possible. It is not pessimistic to think that world cannot be perfect, only rational.
I do think that the world may one day be very close to perfect. I also think that one day the world will be perfect, but there will no longer be rational thinking life. I firmly would say that all other planets in our solar system are uniquely perfect. I mean, what flaw do any of them have? They don't need to support life, so any argument saying that you cannot live on them is thrown out. Think about it.
Also, many have pointed out that in order to achieve perfection, there must be a change of dogma. The only problem with this is that every person who suggests a change in dogma, suggests a change of dogma away from one that they disagree with. People in China might argue that American's need to change their dogma in order to further humans in their pursuit of a near perfect world. As you can see, there is a problem with everyone suggesting a change in thought. Here on the moon, we encourage everyone to think for themselves. But what if in a nearly perfect world, nobody thinks for themselves? what if nobody thinks at all? If you are Christian, I provide the example of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (A truly perfect world). Before they ate of the apple of knowledge (and subsequently thought their own thoughts) their life was perfect.
I'm not suggesting that we all suddenly stop thinking. I would be the worst hypocrite ever. I have always thought for myself, I was raised to not believe in what my parents told me because they told me it, but rather because it was what I wanted to believe. Because I have always thought for myself, it pains me to think of a world where NOBODY thinks for themselves, but would it really be so bad?
Think of ants. Ants are uniquely similar humans, as the two species are the only species of animal in the world that have warfare. Ants do not think for themselves, their brains are literally too small to process any form of self thought, in fact their brains are almost too small to process any thought. Ants are nearly a perfect species, in a given colony, every ant has a job, they all do their job, they all survive. If a species or outside force poses a threat to their species, the entire colony unites against it. They demonstrate tactical warfare, even though they cannot strategize individually. They have no leader, no economy, no individuals. They do have personalities (so I'm told by Dr. Mark Moffett, a photographer and ant specialist), and they seem to live perfectly.
Like I said earlier, I have a hard time imagining such a world with humans, all of us thinking the same. But the point is, if we must change dogma to reach quasi-perfection, then we must do it together. Everyone, not most people.
|
|
|
Post by iwishiwasincollege on Mar 25, 2010 19:58:18 GMT -5
A perfect world can be achieved with equality, peace, love, and understanding. If I were president of the world (hypothetical position), one of the first things I would do to promote equality world wide would be equal pay. Not equal as in everyone gets one hundred dollars a day regardless of what they do... but more of a pay structure such as that you would be paid for the quality and quantity of work that you provide to the world. Some people think that this already exists, but they are devastatingly wrong. The average American CEO is paid over 570 times what the average American is paid, despite the obvious fact that the ceo is not putting in 570 times the amount of work, quantity or quality-wise. There is absolutely no justification for someone making more than 10 times the amount of someone else working just as hard for the same amount of time. I believe that this would put an end to world poverty. We could easily create jobs worldwide for everyone by disestablishing monopolies, and creating easy access for small business loans to people with good ideas on what industries will be most beneficial to their communities. We need to invest in the majority and stop allowing a minority of 1% control 99% of the wealth. Why? Because they aren't doing a good enough job at gettin food on our tables while they fly around on their private jets. Thank you for your time.
If we start caring for each other, and realizing that we are all interconnected, a perfect utopian society will exist in the future.
|
|