• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

What do you think is a possible future for the world's population?

Nixiam said:
Who do we even blame for war at this point. It is a difficult topic to touch because everyone has got their finger on the trigger.

And it goes like this for some of us indecisive, misinformed secular Americans.

"It must be the Christians! Wait, shit America is that. I can't say that about my country, people will hate me! It has to be the Muslims! Who are you calling a biggot? Biggot!"

I would go on to say that the only cause of warfare is the solidification of ignorant concepts in our society. And not just that, but the dependency on these things to be "happy". Someone call me belligerent, but I will point my finger and damn the ones who have become dependent on ideals that negatively impact the population.
Click to expand...

I think you're on the right track. The "ignorant concepts in our society" needs more explanation though and imo they are religion and government in their entirety. Not just one type of religion or government, but all. Those are the two main reasons for the initiation of all wars. Without them, people tend to be very supportive of one another and non violent, but when you introduce these two things, it creates some sort of exception in people's minds. Like, it's OK to kill people if it's on behalf of my government or religion. If people would wake up to the idea that there are no exceptions to this rule, then there wouldn't be so many problems. I have no idea how to get there though.

It seems that a lot of people would agree with me on the religion part, but many still believe in government. The idea that government is necessary is ludicrous. What needs to happen is a system where people vote for policies directly by supporting them with their money. So instead of being taxed and forced to pay for something you don't necessarily agree with, you'd be your own politician. No more disagreements or fighting because everyone's individual voices are heard based on what policies they put their tax money to. No need to elect power hungry sociopaths. In the past, a system like this wouldn't really work, but now with the internet a very efficient system could be used.
 
Xorkoth said:
I'd say that religion is only the excuse used to cover the fact that what really causes most wars is competition for resources. The problem is that people in power always have and always will use religion as the reason for their destructive actions, because religion is, for many people, the most powerful motivator. If it means you get into heaven or whatever equivalent, you'll believe and support and do just about anything.
Click to expand...

True.
There's nothing these days that can be more powerful in order to motivate and excuse people from what they have done. People also comment about ideals and the advantages of having a young population.

Someone told me that in Germany during second WW, the main population was young. Now is different and this might happen in Asia by 2020. I haven't crossed checked these info but it seems reasonable.
 
Synaps3 said:
I think you're on the right track. The "ignorant concepts in our society" needs more explanation though and imo they are religion and government in their entirety. Not just one type of religion or government, but all. Those are the two main reasons for the initiation of all wars. Without them, people tend to be very supportive of one another and non violent, but when you introduce these two things, it creates some sort of exception in people's minds. Like, it's OK to kill people if it's on behalf of my government or religion. If people would wake up to the idea that there are no exceptions to this rule, then there wouldn't be so many problems. I have no idea how to get there though.

It seems that a lot of people would agree with me on the religion part, but many still believe in government. The idea that government is necessary is ludicrous. What needs to happen is a system where people vote for policies directly by supporting them with their money. So instead of being taxed and forced to pay for something you don't necessarily agree with, you'd be your own politician. No more disagreements or fighting because everyone's individual voices are heard based on what policies they put their tax money to. No need to elect power hungry sociopaths. In the past, a system like this wouldn't really work, but now with the internet a very efficient system could be used.
Click to expand...

I definitely meant religion, as well as any other idea that works to societal detriment.
 
It seems to be immigration now. Or xenophobia, 'Islamicphobia' etc.. It all comes to non tolerant people allied with bad politics. And yes a lot of religion on top of all that to be used as a pretext to endorse whatever society wants to rule.
 
^Well put. People really get put off nowadays. Especially in the states. Like, it is bad. Ask anybody here if they want muslim immigrants and you're vey likely to get the same response.



Hence why Donald Trump is winning.
 
Nixiam said:
I definitely meant religion, as well as any other idea that works to societal detriment.
Click to expand...

So are you saying you agree with the government part?

It seems to be immigration now. Or xenophobia, 'Islamicphobia' etc.. It all comes to non tolerant people allied with bad politics. And yes a lot of religion on top of all that to be used as a pretext to endorse whatever society wants to rule.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I hope when you say non-tolerant people, you are referring to the Muslims. I get a feeling from the nature of your post that you are referring to only the Americans or Europeans. Generally, to me it seems like preaching tolerance is a toxic idea. I think acceptance of people who are different from you is good, but when it moves to the realm of accepting people who are often violent, then it's just naive and it seems like the term 'tolerance' is most often used in this way. And I feel that I also have to say that I don't mean all Muslims are bad, I'm just saying that their religion specifically says to kill people, so. . .
 
Ehhh not necessarily. Some government is good. Just not he one we have right now.

I'm an Anarcho Capitalist basically. Libertarianish.
 
I feel like capitalism is hugely maladaptive and one of the driving forces behind global destruction. In a finite system (the economy) it is illogical to rely on and expect an infinite property such as ongoing constant steady growth. The conclusion of capitalism should see all money/power concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

For me, I think a benefit will be derived if we focus on something tangible rather than a chaotic system such as money. By tangible, I think that operating with the ethical constraint of protecting the environment is more valuable than securing jobs and growth for the future. All civilisations ever have collapsed. Ours will inevitably do the same. We probably can't do much to prevent that. However, if the planet stops being able to support life, this is fucked for everything and for all time. In a long-term sense, focusing on the economy as our future will not be enough. I think we need to be making decisions NOW with protecting the environment as a key principle.

edit: I wouldn't say I wholeheartedly follow these beliefs, but I like the focus that deep ecology has. I've heard it described as a facist-green movement, but I don't know about that...
 
Last edited:
Me too. Environment should always come first. It's very difficult to relate to politics that does not have give a shit about environment. It sounds stupid to me when people give more value to money and don't give a shit about the environment. How's that good or sustainable if the planet is about to shut down.
 
I'm an Anarcho Capitalist basically. Libertarianish.
Click to expand...

So am I.

For me, I think a benefit will be derived if we focus on something tangible rather than a chaotic system such as money. By tangible, I think that operating with the ethical constraint of protecting the environment is more valuable than securing jobs and growth for the future.
Click to expand...

So you propose something like a barter system? A society would stagnate under that type of system. It would probably only work in a smaller tribe like society that isn't interested in technology and advancement.

I agree that the environment is important and having a capitalist type system doesn't = bad for the environment. If enough people care about the environment, then business that operate without an environmental impact will want to make that apparent, and therefore more people will support them. The idea of introducing laws/using government to enforce these things is that you haven't successfully convinced enough people, but want the results anyway via force.

The importance is in the 'true value' vs 'forced value'. People's ego's tend to get in the way and they think that enforcing their opinions through government is the right way.

People that are for big government or communism have good intentions, but they are going about it wrong. If you want a truly peaceful society, then it needs to be understood on the individual level, not by enforcement/government.

I think it's critically important that people realize this as we become more 'one' over time. My theory is that eventually we will advance to such a level where everyone's brain is connected through the internet or some medium and it's very important that there is no ego driven control/government at that point because it could lead to some type of hell.
 
I would definitely push for enviornment. For whatever reason people as I have observed don't tend to advocate that... perhaps they feel it might inconvieniance them?
 
Indeed, it's expensive for some and it takes a longer path in the beginning. I noticed a lot of people feel someone else will do that for them, or that their non-contribution would not be so important.

I believe this could be done in a small scale always remembering that if everyone does their part it would already mean something, and encourage others to do the same. At work for instance we developed small things like how could we make our own environment cleaner, from the way we handle the trash to how we turn them to fertilizer to our own garden. Other business followed us and suddenly we see people talking about how to purchase 'better products, sharing ways to save energy, etc, etc.
 
I see people that can not thrive in our hyper-connected world being left behind.

I also see a lot of fences and walls being put up between the haves and have-nots.

The living world will expire around our global machine. We as a species will adapt in ways that seem inhuman.
 
That is the extreme end, I guess.

It goes on and on. When most physical tasks and work becomes automated, more and more will be left behind.
 
At the end of the day everyone is looking for their own problems. It seems that people are not concerned enough.
As long as the epidemies and hunger, lack of potable water is far from us this won't be difficult to ignore.

As much as we try to set our examples kids today are eventually more influenced outside of the family set.
I see a lot of groups progressing towards this clean way of thinking people it's still a sample of what we could have had.
It seems to me that mankind is a bit effortless/passive and my impression is that the majority will wait for someone else to take action.

Unfortunately based on our own history I don't think we learned to expect too much from the human race, unfortunately. Although there are real remarkable people out there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top