Topic: Governments....
started by: Anztac
They take money away from us, they say its for funding for better stuff in the community and so on, when in actual fact the vast majority of it goes into the officials pockets. I mean, when was the last time you saw a government official without an expensive car (over 25,000) and their own driver?
Exactly, thats what I thought.
------------------
When darkness calls and the pain and suffering begin again, you can guarantee that I shall be the instigator.
-
Kevin "Kayy" Beadle, The Proprietor and Innovator of Kayyos-Vx WebDesigns.
We bomb the shit out of dictatorships, because they are "opressive" , but what happens if you do what a democratic government says not to? They have their police throw you in a cell for years or kill you or something.
It's only because there's the occasional chance to have a very small amount of influence over who makes the decisions that people think it's good and dandy.
Really, all that serves to do is make everybody conform to the will of the majority, rather than one man.
It seems the same sort of thing to me, just democracy led governments are a fair way less dynamic than dictatorship led ones.
DuSTman
But if we are talking extremes I'm leaning more towards communism than anarchy even tho' I can see good stuff in both.
Communism is about helping everyone out reaching common goals. That everybody is equal. That's a wonderful thought. Karl Marx must have been the nicest person in the world. I don't think that it's an overestimation of peoples willingness to do dirty jobs. It's rather an underestimation of peoples greed and need for power. People are greedy controlfreaks, and that's why it won't work.
Anarchy is about everyones rights do do what they want. Wonderful thought, but it'll get way out of hand. People would start killing those they didn't like, and then anarchy becomes wrong. I only believe in anarchy if everyone was to obey the 10 commandments, but then it wouldn't be anarchy anymore.
Is there a word called "anarchy+10commandmentism+letshelpeachotherout"? That would be the one I'd pick anyway...just my oppinion of things 
[This message has been edited by Kolben (edited May 28, 2000).]
Be warned: If someone disagrees too much I will be typing thesis type posts and might crash the server
heres a [very, very brief] summery
I have read many books on anarchy, domocracy, socialism, and communism. Communism would never ever work. Just like anarchy would never work. Actually the thought of both extremes is rather amusing. I lean alot towards anarchy. I'm a rational anarchist kind 'o guy. Both overestimate people. Anarchy overestimating peoples moral judgment, and communism overestimating peoples willingness to do dirty jobs just for the sake of state. Now your opinions.
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
Democracy overestimates peoples intelligence as a whole. It also oversimplifies the worlds problems.
In a communism who would be a trash man when they could be a manager? If at birth you were determined to be a manager and went through bussiness school that would be socilal engineering. Social engineering would never be excepted. If people wnet through life not knowing what they were going to do then you'll have a whole bunch of uncertified managers and not enough trash collectors.
Now anarchy just doesn't make sense because everything has an underlying order. I said rational anarchy. Meaning that there always has to be some government.
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
Democracies rely on politicians, whose primary goal is often their career. Whatever course of action that will lead to a government staying in power, will be taken by the government.
This totally disempowers democratic governments from doing things that would be unpopular. This would be fine in an ideal world, as in an ideal world nothing unpopular would need to be done. Ideal the world isn't.
The main problem the world has, as i see it, is the population growth curve. The number of people on earth is rising exponentially, and nothing significant is being done to combat this.
Look at the natural world, rescources for each creature to survive have to come from somewhere.. We have grown sufficiently good at processing the planet to allow for huge rescource usage, but in doing so we destroy many of these rescources. There are widespread environmental issues now, due to our rescourse usage, and this is mainly due to the exponential population growth.
It will be too late, under a world governed by democracies, that enough is done to kerb this growth. The species will be doomed by that time.
What can be done to avoid such a shortfall problem? Why, simple, Kill 2/3 of the population at random, is what i would recommend. It needs done. It won't be done.
We are doomed.
Of where, exactly?
Space?
You're suggesting we colonise space by cramming 4 billion people on a space shuttle, and send them off to terraform mars?
Hmmn.
Despotic dictatorship is the ONLY form of government that can be effective against the worlds problems today.
I'm at university.. No telly...
Dictatorships never work. as for Despotic Dictatorships, well I have absolutley no idea what that is. Enlighten me.
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
[This message has been edited by Anztac (edited May 29, 2000).]
you all are talking american (representative) democracy: we elect people we like/have same ideals as we do, they do what they said they would... sometimes...
pure demo. is better... we all have large voting systems, we pick what we want, and it's direct and final.
------------------
Naw git offa mah Properdy!™
We need an alteration to our society, i'm not suggesting doing away with society as a whole. We benefit from each others skill due to our society, but with a society of 2Bn will be enough. 6Bn people is just insane.
I'm not preaching self reliance really.
Yes, dictatorship is a police state, but so is any other government. The force that a government can exhert on people is why people have to obey their governments.
Not a bad solution, but it still lacks quite the "bite" needed..
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
/me pats his paunch
I could probably feed two dozen chinese. God bless America.
As for killing off 2/3's of the population, who's going to make those cheap computers, those nikes, and the clothes your wearing? Huh, what? Honestly, if I don't hear another hipocrite preaching self reliance I'll die happy. :P
It really suprises me how many people don't realize how good a thing the have going until it's gone. Then again maybe I don't afterall my favorite saying is "People iz dumb".
Now go on throw around your ideal this and ideal that, I want to see someone come up with a practical solution for once.
What is a dictatorship but a police state?
-----------------
Veistran
It's late so if I'm confusing I blame it on that.
rescources used=no. people on planet * mean rescource usage per person on planet = too much.
It's the overall rescources used we have to cut down on, because farms are being overworkek etc, rainforests are being destroyed faster than they grow etc...
However, reducing the mean rescource usage per head would only be a temporary solution, the population would grow more, offsetting this, and then we're back in the same situation.
I am aware that taking the population cull route gives only a temporary fix as well, but the process of culling a portion of the populace is repeatable ad infinitum.. A person needs a minimum of rescources to survive on.
Yes, we could reduce rescource usage per head in america to that of china. That would help.. The Population would grow and soon we're back at the same rescource usage.
Now why have I have seen an almost mirror of this discussion starting in three different places from three different starting points, starting point one, population control. starting point 2, asain pride, (don't ask this was convoluted as hell and I only read it and didn't bother to get in it), and now starting point three, government.
Insane.... it's the way things work, 1st world nations are generally service based economies, second world countries tend toward manufacturing economies, and third world tend toward agragarian economies....
They all depend on eachother to function though. Look at it this way. American buisness wants to manufacture X to build and operate a plant in america employing union workers would cost them say ฤ- an hour. To do the same thing in China would cost them thousands less to build, and they'd be paying them almost nothing compared to the union workers. so then minus the export costs and shipping costs let's say they're still comming out ahead 300\% of what doing it in America would cost. Where would you do it? When it's all about bottom lines, China/Taiwan etc... would be the place to go. And so many people say that it's abuse of them, think about it literally, w/o those factories the chinese would all be working in rice paddies still. If it was you, would you rather work in a factory or a rice paddy for your dollar a day? It may not seem fair, but to them it provides them witha better standard of living and that's what it comes down to. See how it works? It may not seem fair to you, and that's fine but your standard of living is different from theirs.
As for right and wrong and culling of the weak... sure you're saying that now, but I doubt you'd be saying that it was quite alright for me to kill if I walked up to you kicked you in the nuts whiped out a .45 and stuck it to your forehead, now would you? Afterall me getting you into that position would mean that you're weak. No, You and most likely all of us would maybe lose control of their bladder, and start crying like a baby. I doubt anyone can honestly say they'd ask me to pull the trigger right then and there.:P
[This message has been edited by veistran (edited May 30, 2000).]
I believe in "soft anarchy" - its a european concept ... with some principles of anachy like wealth redistribution, but the nasty bits taken out (like we do need police, etc.).
My 2 doubloons ...
------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
quote:
Originally posted by incubus:
I believe in "soft anarchy" - its a european concept ... with some principles of anachy like wealth redistribution, but the nasty bits taken out (like we do need police, etc.).
I'm confused. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Anarchy was lack of government. How does wealth redistribution fit in here? Thought that was a communist idea..
My opinion: The less government control, the better. Keep taxes low and people will spend their money and keep the economy flowing. Supply and demand, etc. I think a strict crimal code is a good idea though. And, I would like to see a society where social services such as welfare aren't necessary. I think they are to some extent, which is too bad because governments seem to screw things like that up (as in wasting money). In the past religious groups used to take care of the poor, but that time has passed.
[This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited May 30, 2000).]
The only form of goverment better than Democracy is Danacracy, basicaly I get everything, the rest of you dwell at my feet, and run the power plants that power my royal computers... 4000000-strong net of xeon 10000ghz processors invented by you, my petty slaves... (Oh yeah, me super duper computers 5023023 gigabytes of ram, enough to play 103 instances of quake and still have enoigh to pirate Win2k from a w4r3z ftp site, and watch pam and tommy... 
)
im done, im insane, leave me alone
------------------
< www.refsoft.com
buy > something, make me happy.
On the ohter hand India has contributed nothing except threats to pakastan. If any nation should go I cant think of a better one than India. No offence, im sure there are tons of good people there, but the world is crowded and I'm sorry to say but india is pretty much worthless...
quote:
Originally posted by Lizzy:
It's about who you remove from the planet. Eliminating China and India would probably cut the world's population in half. Most of the people there are poor or starving and of no real use to society. I wouldn't support killing them, but if none of them could have children, that would solve a big problem.
------------------
< www.refsoft.com
buy > something, make me happy.
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
Yup./me pats his paunch
I could probably feed two dozen chinese. God bless America.
------------------
< www.refsoft.com
buy > something, make me happy.
quote:
Originally posted by Lizzy:
It's about who you remove from the planet. Eliminating China and India would probably cut the world's population in half. Most of the people there are poor or starving and of no real use to society. I wouldn't support killing them, but if none of them could have children, that would solve a big problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Dan:
My dad drives a cab (though he used to be a nuclear physist, but thats a whole other story) , in chicago. We live in a three story house, own two computers, a dog, a bunch of tvs and alot of other really expensive stuff... and we are not indebpt... Just proves that if you have half a brain but a shitty job you can still live a good life in America... How many other countrys can you say that about (definatly not india and china...)
You're on a roll talking to yourself, bud. Get your head checked.
------------------
"Everyone's favorite implement for any task"
------------------
Ummm.. why are you assuming that "the longevity of our species" has some special value to the universe when in fact it does not? The universe cares as much about our species as it does about right and wrong. The same line of irrationally-based logic that dictates that we must be preserved is the same basis for the idea that there is such a thing as right/wrong.
You cannot have one without the other, and since you value the former, you must logically extend to value the latter.
As for the idea that 2/3 of the population must be killed off to preserve the species, where exactly do you come up with this number? I've heard plenty of other estimates, including one that says Earth could support up to 50 billion people. Are we just to assume that the guesstimate you quote is true and murder 4 billion people, just in case it is?
Oh, and the US is not a democracy, it's a representative republic. Big difference.
As far as the best form of government to have, they all suck, but they are better than the alternative of anarchy. Humans are the reason that governments are necessary. And don't get all noble about how natural selection has somehow granted us with some mystical intrinsic greatness. Remember that we are all the progeny of the cavemen who beat the shit out of everyone else and wanted to fuck all the time. Oh, how proud we must all be...
All ideals of governments are destroyed in the face of human nature. A good rule of thumb is that any system which proposes to eliminate human suffering is going to suck. Being pragmatic is the only way to reign in idealism and come up with a good solution. Personally, the best I've seen as of yet is the one they have in Starship Troopers. If you guarantee that every citizen has had to earn their rights, you get a much better chance that they will give a shit and not piss it all away as we Americans are so fond of doing.
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
Also... so far, the most effective method of reducing population growth without resorting to killing people (ugh) is empowering women. There are organizations that make microloans to women so they can start their own business... even if it means buying a cell phone and letting the other villagers pay Ũ.15 a minute to use it. Once this stuff happens, the women have fewer babies... why breed when there's greed?
so you see... the "bad" qualities of people can be used in a positive way.
quote:
Originally posted by Anztac:
Ok usually I'm not one for rational answers, but you guy are talking mass genocide! WTF! theres no way you guys are serious and if you are then your fucking insane! If we start saying "lets kill all Chinese people" and "No one can live on this planet unless they agree to these rules" we have efectivlry become the Fourth Reich. Why would we want to eliminate China anyways? You say because they're mostly starving and not producing anything? You got it all wrong. They're all starving and producing [b]everything and were fattening and producing practically nothing. So obviously Dust's solution isn't right. Next![/B]
Free your mind anztac!
I didn't suggest going after china specifically. I just said that there must be a culling of a significant percentage of the population in order to reduce the population to a level that the world can sustain with the amount of rescources per person we use now without causing significant environmental damage. Environmental damage that would kill all of us in the end, most likely..
Would you rather 2/3 of the population die or all of it? Yes, it's a mass cull. Yes, there would be moral outcry.
Morals arn't logic. I personally do not believe in right and wrong, per se.
"It is wrong to kill" - err, what was the question? There is no evidence to suggest that by killing somebody we piss the universe off. Right and wrong, as most people think of it, would be as if it was a property of the universe, it isn't, it's about how they feel about doing certain things. Personally i'm not sure if this morality has evolved into us as an enhancement to our instincs, or just trained into us from society, but one thing is certain, the theory that some actions are right and wrong fundamentally is not supportable by any logic.
We must not get bogged down with this Right/wrong concept stopping us doing what must be done to preserve the longevity of our species.
Kill people. It makes sense.
You are, of course, free to think of me as some insane psychopath, but that won't help.
I seriously doubt there can be any entirely logically provable refutation of the thoery that morality is bullshit. If you can think of one, tell me.
quote:
Originally posted by Anztac:
Ok usually I'm not one for rational answers, but you guy are talking mass genocide! WTF! theres no way you guys are serious and if you are then your fucking insane! If we start saying "lets kill all Chinese people" and "No one can live on this planet unless they agree to these rules" we have efectivlry become the Fourth Reich. Why would we want to eliminate China anyways? You say because they're mostly starving and not producing anything? You got it all wrong. They're all starving and producing [b]everything and were fattening and producing practically nothing. So obviously Dust's solution isn't right. Next![/B]
Free your mind anztac!
I didn't suggest going after china specifically. I just said that there must be a culling of a significant percentage of the population in order to reduce the population to a level that the world can sustain with the amount of rescources per person we use now without causing significant environmental damage. Environmental damage that would kill all of us in the end, most likely..
Would you rather 2/3 of the population die or all of it? Yes, it's a mass cull. Yes, there would be moral outcry.
Morals arn't logic. I personally do not believe in right and wrong, per se.
"It is wrong to kill" - err, what was the question? There is no evidence to suggest that by killing somebody we piss the universe off. Right and wrong, as most people think of it, would be as if it was a property of the universe, it isn't, it's about how they feel about doing certain things. Personally i'm not sure if this morality has evolved into us as an enhancement to our instincs, or just trained into us from society, but one thing is certain, the theory that some actions are right and wrong fundamentally is not supportable by any logic.
We must not get bogged down with this Right/wrong concept stopping us doing what must be done to preserve the longevity of our species.
Kill people. It makes sense.
You are, of course, free to think of me as some insane psychopath, but that won't help.
I seriously doubt there can be any entirely logically provable refutation of the thoery that morality is bullshit. If you can think of one, tell me.
When you say "in order to reduce the population to a level that the world can sustain with the amount of rescources per person we use now" you mean of course the amount of resources America uses per person. China, seeing as their people are starving, does not use nearly as much resources per person. In china, by the way, the best way to insure your own survival is either by working your ass off your whole life, or having a child to do it for you. And in a lot of cases both.
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
quote:
Originally posted by Anztac:
Actually I had forgotten Starship Troopers. I am rather fond of most of the ideas in it. That is probably the best solution anyone has proposed to the problem.
I must say I agree with you. He had some very good (if a little controversial) ideas about punishment and voting rights. Now all we need is someone with the guts to try and pass it as law...
To be honest though, I don't think there is such a thing as a good government. As far as I can tell any form of government is intrinsically flawed in that human beings are, at root, selfish creatures. If you study evolution at all ("The Selfish Gene" is a good book), you'll learn that altruistic behaviour is generally directed toward siblings. When the choice is between a small amount of good to a large number of people, only a few of whom are closely related to yourself, compared to a large amount of good to onesself (ie a bribe, 'approprating' resources) then it is obvious which is, evolutionarily speaking, the better choice. Hence, those humans (or proto-humans) who make choices like that will survive and breed, whereas altruistic creatures will die off.
Systems like 'morals' are a purely social construct, to try and counter the innate selfish tendencies of humans. The reason they survive is that a society is better than an individual (pooling of resources, etc etc etc). However, without socially-instilled morals, and 'normal' (ie selfish) human would simply steal, cheat or whatever to ensure the maximum gains from the minimum effort. Of course, if everyone did this then society would collapse, hence moral systems become evolutionarily benificial. It's a simple win-loss matrix: for a two person interaction, consider two possible actions: selfish (s) and altruistic (a). The matrix below shows the outcome of your choices - your gain is before the slash, your 'partner's gain is after (an abstract number to represent how much you gain/lose) (God only knows if this is going to format OK. Here goes nothing...)
other
s a
y s 0/0 5/0
o
u a 0/5 3/3
If you add the numbers up, logically you would both be better off if you are both altruistic. Of course, this is only the simplist explanation but I don't have time for an essay (like I haven't written one already).
Of course, in a large society small amounts of selfishness will not destroy the society, hence the reason corruption etc still exists.
Just to summarise:
- Anarchy fails because without control, all humans will act selfishly (all lose)
- Representative Democracy fails because those chosen to represent would rather be selfish than provide a small amount of good to the masses (greed wins)
- True democracy fails because it relies on the public being interested enough to research every damn topic that comes up (apathy wins)
- Communism fails becuase those chosen to 'represent' the people are, inevitably, vulnerable to corruption (Greed wins, yet again)
So there you have it, my ten pence worth of flamebait. Enjoy.
-- Aethr
quote:
Originally posted by Serpwidgets:
[B]Dustman says: "We must not get bogged down with this Right/wrong concept stopping us doing what must be done to preserve the longevity of our species."Ummm.. why are you assuming that "the longevity of our species" has some special value to the universe when in fact it does not? The universe cares as much about our species as it does about right and wrong. The same line of irrationally-based logic that dictates that we must be preserved is the same basis for the idea that there is such a thing as right/wrong.
You cannot have one without the other, and since you value the former, you must logically extend to value the latter.
As for the idea that 2/3 of the population must be killed off to preserve the species, where exactly do you come up with this number? I've heard plenty of other estimates, including one that says Earth could support up to 50 billion people. Are we just to assume that the guesstimate you quote is true and murder 4 billion people, just in case it is?
[B]
True, the universe itself does not care about how our species survive. However, thinking that there is no great purpose to it, we would just end up doing nothing all day. When you're dead, it is the absence of everything (i believe) and i suspect being alive is a whole lot more fun. To make being alive worthwhile you have to follow your instincts to a certain extent. True, there is no reason to preserve our species on the scale of things, but the thought of our extinction looming weighs heavy on my mind..
The thought of some pensioner getting her head smashed in so someone can steal the contents of her purse.. Please.. I don't give a sh1t.
To support 50 billion people we would first have to do some crazy stuff to the planet.. With that population it's be one big city, food grown in hydroponics, the choking stench of the car exhausts almost knocking you unconscious.
Yes. I think 4 billion people would be a sensible amount of people to murder.
where are we gonna put 4 billion dead bodies ?
Ticks=small blood sucking animals.
If progress means to move forward then congress means to...?
Here are my thoughts. I would kill off 90\% of the population and then use the remaining 10 percent as my slaves so that I could rebuild. Don't worry, when the time comes you will all have jobs. Ill even appoint cr0bar as head of the loyal opposition so that he could safely rant against me. I would be a shame to waste such a resource.
As for where the bodies would go, I'm sure they would make good fertilizer. Or could be used as a fuel source.
Sorry, its the German in me.
Enough of that. The problem with the gov we have today is that you only have 2 choices and they both suck. Once the person is in there you can't get rid of them. What we need is a way to force an election any November we want so that we can get rid of people that lied to us. It would not make a difference right away but once they saw that their job relied on their job performance they would tend to listen better. We don't need a better form of government we just need to fix the one we have now.
------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
Within the time of WW1 + WW2, the germans managed to restructure their economy and actually become a power to be acknowledged - only they went too far.
As for the Population thing, I believe the most recent figures are showing that most devolped countries have declining birth rates but people are living longer, so perhaps a solution such as Loguns Run should be taken.
It may be extreme but I do believe that we should nuke China, India get the areas under control now - before they start WW3.
eh... personally, if you are gonna keep 10\% of the peopl id makes sure 9\% are doctors..
(make sense to me) have an entire world of doctors, and the people who lead them.
-- Kill all the grannies then feed them to the remaining populous, overcomes the rotting part, solves their food supply, recycle the bodies ?
okay, I am getting seriously freaked out here, can I really be this twisted?
so... what you do is, wait until the earth's population reaches a real bad number, then there are not enough resources to support that population, then people go to war to steal food from other people, and bunches of people die... or the next influenza plaque hits, whichever one, and no one listened to some lil psychopathic ecocentric doomsday rant about killing people off because they were dooming the human race =D ... or the earths population decreases due to better birth control or whatnot or we go off into space whatever and everyone dies happy instead of bein killed by pop. control police for no reason =D
------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --#
as far as the best government we have right now, i have to be full of my american self and say ours. the most efficient is a dictatorship, but you won't get more than 1 or 2 good rulers before an idiot gets in power and the whole country goes to shit. the REPUBLIC that the u.s. in under is flawed, i will admit. most of the politicians are only concerned with their own career and money, but not many of them are doing much worse than wasting my tax dollars. i can live with that, bitching the whole way. the voters are apathetic even now, so almost no new people come in, and that sucks. but don't bitch to me, i vote. the starship troopers idea is very intruiging to say the least.
killing 1/2 of the population sounds like a good idea. 2/3 is too much, i need people to make my ram for me. anyway, it's a start. and i'm not saying it needs to be one ethnicity or one country. i work at a retail pet store in missouri, and i could peg a lot of people in that store that serve no purpose here on earth but to take up my oxygen. give ruling power to a select few people with very good judgement, namely me, and let them pick the worthless scum that will die and no one will miss. even put the people in pairs so they can argue about it so it can't be a personal thing. as far as where to put the bodies, i'm all for the fertilizer idea, but we have this huge depressed area in the earth, it's filled with water, maybe you've heard of it, it's called the ocean. we also have these things called barges that can hold thousands of tons of cargo. now all we have to do is find the people to throw the bodies overboard. . . we can pay those third-world workers their dollar a day to do that. but if you want to go old-school, take the nazi-esque route and just cremate them. they did 6 million or more in a short time with few burners. imagine what the whole world united can do. (by the way, i am half german)
as far as the kid thing goes, i'm with an idea that i heard on loveline a long time ago (on the radio, the tv version sucks). put birth control in tap water. what do poor people who have lots of kids and go on welfare drink? that's right, tap water because they can't afford anything else. rich people who can afford kids buy bottled water or some other drink. it can even be done silently so people don't get their panties in a bunch about their rights being violated.
i do belive in right and wrong, but i also belive if you have a good reason, namely the preservation of the species, doing something bad is ok. i do something bad every day, even every hour. and if you go the religious way, god says every sin is the same, so theoretically it doesn't matter if you think an impure thought or kill off half the world population. i'm not sure i believe that, but it's what i would use for propoganda.
in the end, it comes down to how much we want this species to survive. face it, sooner or later, we're going to kill ourselves. whether by nuclear war, a plague of our own creation, or mass suicide, we as a species are going to die. and the universe doesn't give a rat's ass. that's right, contrary to everything you've been fed since birth, not everything you do has a profound impact on earth, the universe, your country, your community, or even your own life. our lives are mainly controlled by politicians, bosses, parents, and the like. authority figures. everyone has to answer to someone. that's the way it works.
that's about all i can think of off the top of my head. you may think i'm twisted and have psychological problems, but don't worry, i don't have plans to start this movement. soon. . .
Support the GPPTF!
------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/
I recently read an interesting Star Wars book that had a quote that was something like, "Don't put the needs of the galaxy at such importance that you forget about the individuals within it."
What I'm saying is: Before you go running off trying to fix the big picture, realize that it is only a product of all the little pictures.
As far as more reasonable measures to reduce the amounts of stupid people in the gene pool, how about PSA ads that say, "Suicide is cool," and "play in traffic, it's fun!"
Beware that apathy breeds extremism. That is how the Nazi party got into control: they convinced people that the system didn't work(and Palpatine... coincidence or did Lucas take a lesson from history?) Extremists always vote, and when the mainstream stops caring the only votes left are those of the extremes.
let's randomly kill off three billion people. you will like it. it will be fun. are you drunk?!?! hitler, who we can all agree was nuttier than a payday, wrote a damn book about that. yeah, mein kampf. that's the first chapter. i haven't made it past that so i don't know where he went from there (warsaw ghetto, i imagine), but the first chapter says that we should kill everyone below a certain "iq." (he had some other, similar, form of measurement). that's ludicrous. but i fully agree. i imagine i'd make the cut, i'm cool with it. but what about my friends? (to hell with my family, i didn't pick 'em) i've some good buddies that i wouldn't want to sacrifice, but that's just because i know them. so who draws the line? i'd say kill everyone under 130. then one of two things would happen:
A: the sub 130's revolt and pull a 187 on everyone over 130 or
B: we decide to move it up to 135. and then 140. etc.
little problem. hell, to go back to star trek, one of my favorite episodes was "who watches the watchers". or was that at the begging of the stand?
the problem is the people. and there was the whole long dis about india and pakistan and china. i don't know anyone that's chinese, so that doesn't bother me, but i have a friend that's a paki that's right up there intelligence-wise with ghandi and cr0. cause you gotta respect ghandi, he did what i doubt any of us (i.e. me) would do, he spent large portions of his life in jail, in suffering, for the common good. and they killed him for it. his own people killed him.
now that i've lost my train of thought i volunteer to be on the first settlement of space.
--cracka ass wannabe
------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
Mind control?
Wiping out the population?
Massive military presence?
You don't have one of those little charlie chaplin moustaches, do you ?!?
------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...
Any organized process that relies on people will have faults. People have opinions, and when forced to choose, will choose either the greater good, or the lesser evil (or whatever is funniest). Political concessions will always have to be made, as a person will choose what is in his/her best interest.
I feel that the best mix of politics would be a Socialistic Democracy (figgger that out).
------------------
Reality is what happens between drunken blackouts
dustman, you ever read 1984? that's the shit you need. i dig the anti utopias and your idea is a combo of Huxley's "Brave New World" and Orwell's "1984." You're talking about mind control as a long term plan (i have to assume you're more or less serious) and military presence as the short term solution. so my question is, how do you plan to recruit, train, arm, and-most importantly-control a 1.2 billion soldiers. they would be bigger parasites on global resources than the current population already is. besides, soldiers need prostitutes, and they'd get real angry as soon as they ran out; there just wouldn't be that many ho's in the world if 1.2 BILLION people were under arms.
the only way that form of route would work is through propaganda. or really good advertising.
[This message has been edited by Nero (edited May 31, 2000).]
Have you gotten the point yet? There is NO political panacea. Can you say, "duh?"
quote:
Originally posted by cr0bar:
/me steps in to interrupt, since everyone else is afraid to:
You're on a roll talking to yourself, bud. Get your head checked.
Take rabbits, predators control their numbers and they are not able to cause any great harm because of what they do.
We have no significant predators. We are able to cause great harm to our environment.
What is to control our numbers?
There must be something.
If you don't think this is a problem now i invite you to step down the line 50 years, with this exponential growth.
Think about it. Why is the base of why you obey your government? For a lot of people it's the police. The governments military force for dealing with internal matters.
The government will be able to get away with anything if they have a massive military presence.
But what if the soldiers rebel?
Deal with that by hypnosis. They will do anything their commanders say.
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
Lets face it whatever method is used to choose who gets smeared is going to incite a rebellion of sorts, let's just get a massive f**king army to control the people. The army's loyalty can be assured using mind control and hypnotic methods.
What is happening in the animal kingdom is a good barometer of the state of the environmetnt..
------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --#
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
America at the beginning was one of the best governments ever. But all the endless political arguments and misinterpretations have rendered the Constitution and the base of the country into a piece of useless paper, and the country is now not in much better shape.
------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
Yes. That's the crux of it. Large scale killings seem necessary to preserve our species, but the change necessary to put this into practise would make society a less pleasant place to be.
For the race to become something.. harder..
Or for the race to become nothing.
My choice is the former. Yours is the latter.
So be it.
I could go one step farther with this and say the gov is aranging events to make gun controll look like a good idea but that would make me look paranoid. (the computer is your friend, trust the computer)
/paranoid rant
All i can say is that is what i would do to get the populace to think guns are to bad to be in the hands of average people. Cause a few incidents that the press will not let go for years like a school shooting. have a wacko shoot at the white house from across the street... These things make people want the goverment to restrict guns, and that makes the gov happy.
/end paranoid rant
have a nice day
------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)
------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
Gun Control is a good thing, though it is the person who kills not the gun itself.
Wouldn't it be more appropiate to bring in more severe punishments in - making people responsible for their own actions again(unlike today), you rape so you die, you murder you die, commit large scale fraud you die etc... Its more acceptable to the public, deters crime thus making a better society and reduces prison numbers and costs.
------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
I am in no way shape or form in favor of gun controll by the goverment. If they have guns i want them too.
Kuros.
I never said the gov did it, i said thats what i would do if i wanted it done.
I am for the death penalty for violent crimes. if you kill someone you are dead, end of line.
after they are dead we should harvest their ogans and get some use out of them.
Gun controll is the ability to hit your target while your diving for cover. Now that's controll
------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)
The other thing to consider is justice. Whether or not the person is guilty. I don't remember the quote, but it is something along the order of "It's better to let 100 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person be executed."
More food for thought.
Fire up the chair, its time for a texas bbq!
------------------
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)
1. Democracy works, for the most part. The only major problems that have arisen have come from the inability of government officials to 'shoot themselves in the foot'. This is why campaign finance hasn’t happened, and why the bureaucracy keeps swelling.
2. Blindly killing India and China's poor may eliminate population of limited worth, but what about stupid rich people in the US? They deserve to live over some under-realized potential starving in Asia? I don't think so.
3. On the same note as the previous, I'd like to suggest genetic weeding/ engineering. Its unethical, but hey, so is killing 4 billion people, or even the slightly more humanitarian idea of sending them to their deaths in space. Rather than randomly selecting 4bil to die, select the least viable 4bil. Get rid of the stupidest people, because in the future, robots and virtual reality will eliminate the viability of dumb, strong people anyway. What good is a blacksmith, who is strong enough to wield his hammer, when we have a robot who does it for longer, for a one time charge? And in place of the food for the blacksmith, we have food for 2 or 3 thin, intelligent, scientists/thinkers.
On this note, I'd like to suggest to anyone who hasn't, to read the Dune series. Some great stuff on genetics, and all that. While I'm on genetics and all that, I want to touch on socialism. Why blindly assign people to be garbage collectors or managers? Find out what they are good at, and force them to pursue it. If the have managerial skills and intellect, they become a manager. If they have brute strength, they become a garbage collector. Simple as that.
4. Almost forgot this part... I thought of it this morning in physics as we were discussing energy and watts and power bills. People waste energy and most of their other resources as well. This is because we have plenty of it. Energy's cheap, so why worry about how much we use? Well, here's one reason- it’s inefficient as all hell. Power plants are sitting out there chugging uranium or coal or whatever, and what are they powering? The lights in our empty houses, the TV's blaring to the personless couch. Household's should get a limited quantity of resources, and be made to live within this. There is too much bounty, and its making us lazy. It applies not just to power, that was just the trigger for my brain. Food, for example. You've all heard your parents: "Don't waste, there are children starving in Ethiopia." They were right, they just lacked the motivation to enforce their ideals. With a limited amount of food, you wouldn’t be able to waste, and the excess you no longer received could be sent directly to Ethiopia.
5. It is difficult to say you have to die for the greater good. Nothing could produce a greater feeling of shittiness. See, survival of the fittest does that for us. It’s kind of paradoxical, but I think it makes sense. If people were willing to kill themselves, or let themselves be killed for the greater good, the chance that they would still be living is slim. The whole Darwin theory says that we cannot allow that to happen to ourselves, or at least not without reproducing first.
6. Government IS necessary. You think poverty is a problem now? Imagine it without welfare. All of our problems would be so magnified it would be unbearable. Who would maintain the roads? The people who live on them? Gimme a break, we need government, just like young kids need parents to make them do the unpleasant parts of life. Government is the willpower for the masses.
7. Starship troopers had great ideas. Patriotism is one awesome way to promote altruism. Do it for the good of the country, with a flag to rally around, can be very powerful.
8. Off topic, but anyone ever think of the ridiculousness of time and human existence in general. That stuff creeps me out. I sit in my bed thinking, and I feel like crap whenever the vastness of the universe and time hits me, and I realize I'm barely birdshit on the windshield of this universe.
9. The bodies could be used as fertilizer.
10. Lets get off trying to install ourselves as dictator of the new world, its really stupid.
11. MIB was right - "people are stupid."
Good, I think that's all I wanted to say.
Wait, one more thing. I'm working on forming my own Internet nation, and I'd like some of you to fire me some ideas, or even join up. It's very preliminary right now, but drop me a line at slicer@z.com, or visit the site at < www.ProjectMarin.homestead.com >
Okay, sorry for taking up so much space
You may think you're excellent, but if i'm the one that'll be assessing whether or not you are to be killed, your worth to yourself is a useless barometer for me to use. Your worth to me or society would be what you are judged on.
Should i manage to raise a task force for a mass killage, i would either do it totally at random or try and assess your worth in terms of the goal of the mission. The survival of the human race.
Another thing is...WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH YOU PEOPLE?? Do you actually believe that slaughtering 2/3 of the human race would solve anything at all. Or are you just sick perverts who likes to make bloody messes of innocent people. Actually lot's of the people you're talking about (from the 3. world or whatever) are great great thinkers. It's people who's thoughts have gone a lot further than ours ever will. People that maybe actually have remedies for the worlds problems. So I think that the actual problems in the world are you guys who wants to slaughter the smart people. Hitlers' regime was quite efficient, but he was insane. The old people from the time is actually still chocked be their own reactions when they were listening to him. And the only reason why the German people was efficient was because of the "obey or die" thing they had. And what the hell kinda life is that.
Another thing: You can't kill that many people...They'd team up on you and kick your asses. They're twice as many as you. It wouldn't be possible. Throw a nuke at them? You'd destroy the environment and make it inhabitable. And you'd probably just end with getting one back. Because USA is actually not the only country with nuclear capabilities.
People that tries to justify murder makes me sick.
/me pukes in your faces!
quote:
Originally posted by Slicer:
Great thread we've got going here. I don't think I've ever seen this much intelligent debate in one place before, but hey, I go to a public school. Ok, now for my rant. This is gonna sound choppy, but I won't remember everything if I don’t put it this way.
1. Democracy works, for the most part. The only major problems that have arisen have come from the inability of government officials to 'shoot themselves in the foot'. This is why campaign finance hasn’t happened, and why the bureaucracy keeps swelling.2. Blindly killing India and China's poor may eliminate population of limited worth, but what about stupid rich people in the US? They deserve to live over some under-realized potential starving in Asia? I don't think so.
3. On the same note as the previous, I'd like to suggest genetic weeding/ engineering. Its unethical, but hey, so is killing 4 billion people, or even the slightly more humanitarian idea of sending them to their deaths in space. Rather than randomly selecting 4bil to die, select the least viable 4bil. Get rid of the stupidest people, because in the future, robots and virtual reality will eliminate the viability of dumb, strong people anyway. What good is a blacksmith, who is strong enough to wield his hammer, when we have a robot who does it for longer, for a one time charge? And in place of the food for the blacksmith, we have food for 2 or 3 thin, intelligent, scientists/thinkers.
On this note, I'd like to suggest to anyone who hasn't, to read the Dune series. Some great stuff on genetics, and all that. While I'm on genetics and all that, I want to touch on socialism. Why blindly assign people to be garbage collectors or managers? Find out what they are good at, and force them to pursue it. If the have managerial skills and intellect, they become a manager. If they have brute strength, they become a garbage collector. Simple as that.
4. Almost forgot this part... I thought of it this morning in physics as we were discussing energy and watts and power bills. People waste energy and most of their other resources as well. This is because we have plenty of it. Energy's cheap, so why worry about how much we use? Well, here's one reason- it’s inefficient as all hell. Power plants are sitting out there chugging uranium or coal or whatever, and what are they powering? The lights in our empty houses, the TV's blaring to the personless couch. Household's should get a limited quantity of resources, and be made to live within this. There is too much bounty, and its making us lazy. It applies not just to power, that was just the trigger for my brain. Food, for example. You've all heard your parents: "Don't waste, there are children starving in Ethiopia." They were right, they just lacked the motivation to enforce their ideals. With a limited amount of food, you wouldn’t be able to waste, and the excess you no longer received could be sent directly to Ethiopia.
5. It is difficult to say you have to die for the greater good. Nothing could produce a greater feeling of shittiness. See, survival of the fittest does that for us. It’s kind of paradoxical, but I think it makes sense. If people were willing to kill themselves, or let themselves be killed for the greater good, the chance that they would still be living is slim. The whole Darwin theory says that we cannot allow that to happen to ourselves, or at least not without reproducing first.
6. Government IS necessary. You think poverty is a problem now? Imagine it without welfare. All of our problems would be so magnified it would be unbearable. Who would maintain the roads? The people who live on them? Gimme a break, we need government, just like young kids need parents to make them do the unpleasant parts of life. Government is the willpower for the masses.
7. Starship troopers had great ideas. Patriotism is one awesome way to promote altruism. Do it for the good of the country, with a flag to rally around, can be very powerful.
8. Off topic, but anyone ever think of the ridiculousness of time and human existence in general. That stuff creeps me out. I sit in my bed thinking, and I feel like crap whenever the vastness of the universe and time hits me, and I realize I'm barely birdshit on the windshield of this universe.
9. The bodies could be used as fertilizer.
10. Lets get off trying to install ourselves as dictator of the new world, its really stupid.
11. MIB was right - "people are stupid."Good, I think that's all I wanted to say.
Wait, one more thing. I'm working on forming my own Internet nation, and I'd like some of you to fire me some ideas, or even join up. It's very preliminary right now, but drop me a line at slicer@z.com, or visit the site at < www.ProjectMarin.homestead.com >
Okay, sorry for taking up so much space
quote:
6. Government IS necessary. You think poverty is a problem now? Imagine it without welfare. All of our problems would be so magnified it would be unbearable.
While I agree that government is necessary, welfare is not. In fact we as a country were much better off without it. If welfare were eliminated, it’s true there would be a period where the unemployment rate would be high, but eventually those people who sit home everyday waiting for their checks to come would have to get off their sorry asses and find something to do. There is definitely room for every person to be able to find something to do to support himself (or herself). If people can't support themselves they are a drain on the economy and should become the responsibility of family members, communities and charitable institutions: not the government. Government is just too inefficient to deal with things like that. Besides, it’s not fair to us taxpayers to have to fork over some of our hard-earned money to some brainless dolt who is too lazy to go out and earn his own bread and butter.
Welfare is socialism, plain and simple: the redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don’t. And socialism is a blight that must to be removed from this world. It's great in theory “make everyone equal,” but it relies on the assumption that we are altruistic, and humans by and large are definitely not altruistic. I want as much for me as I can have with as little effort as I can make. And I bet you all share that drive too. I'd even venture to say that 99\% of the human race feels that way (although many would deny it).
Get rid of welfare and bureaucracy and you will have a government that is lean and effective, and in the long run, much better for innovation and development of technology, and thence the species itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Hellraiser:
While I agree that government is necessary, welfare is not. In fact we as a country were much better off without it. If welfare were eliminated, it’s true there would be a period where the unemployment rate would be high, but eventually those people who sit home everyday waiting for their checks to come would have to get off their sorry asses and find something to do. There is definitely room for every person to be able to find something to do to support himself (or herself). If people can't support themselves they are a drain on the economy and should become the responsibility of family members, communities and charitable institutions: [b]not the government. Government is just too inefficient to deal with things like that. Besides, it’s not fair to us taxpayers to have to fork over some of our hard-earned money to some brainless dolt who is too lazy to go out and earn his own bread and butter.Welfare is socialism, plain and simple: the redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don’t. And socialism is a blight that must to be removed from this world. It's great in theory “make everyone equal,” but it relies on the assumption that we are altruistic, and humans by and large are definitely not altruistic. I want as much for me as I can have with as little effort as I can make. And I bet you all share that drive too. I'd even venture to say that 99\% of the human race feels that way (although many would deny it).
Get rid of welfare and bureaucracy and you will have a government that is lean and effective, and in the long run, much better for innovation and development of technology, and thence the species itself.[/B]
Genetic engineering is stupid. I think we should let natural selection run it's course. lIke George Carlin said "we save entirerly to many children here in America!...the child that chokes on too many marbles doesn't get to raise his own kids!". And also it was mentioned by Heinlein in Stranger in a Strange Land: There needs to be a selection process for a species to progress.
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
Killing large numbers of people is really not a feasible idea. Can we all agree on this? There is a shitty "why" and I don't recall seeing anyone post a "how." The bodies were a problem, but we "solved" that by setting up a new Space doesn't seem like a good idea either. At least in the near future. I could be wrong, but I'm doubting anything approaching safe
ormal\marginallycomfortable colonization is going to happen in the next ten to twenty years. So we need to deal with what we have. We need to find a better form of currency to base our economies on. Gold doesn't seem too terribly useful to me. Energy, on the other hand, does. I haven't actually thought out a decent implementation of the energy idea, but it would bring most countries of the world to a more even playing field. If you produce energy, you can buy/build things. If you don't you're gonna need some philathropist friends. That would at least make India and China more economically helpful to the world.
Personally, I think a good starting idea for controlling the population level would be to make reproduction only possible through a pill or medical procedure that costs money. That way we wouldn't have the rapid growth in poor areas. It would also be better for the children as well, since those who could not afford to raise children would not be able to have them. Hmm...maybe that could spawn a new thread.
------------------ "I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots" First, and on topic, survival of the fittest depends on reproduction, and the survival and reproductive viability of the offspring. By this reasoning, poor people who have tons of kids are probably more 'fit' than rich people with no kids. The way in richness affects your fitness today can be seen in rich old men who score 20 something super models. In this way, they are able to propagate themselves, and it is their wealth that makes them more fit. One can also examine the Darwinian success of various religions. Catholicism, although rather against Darwin, proves his theories quite well. Since Catholics do not believe in contraception, they tend to have more children. More children is a sign of fitness, so Catholicism is much more fit by Darwin's standards than say, an Atheistic faith that allows for contraception and abortion. Gays, also, are contradictions to Darwin. Without the ability to reproduce, they should die out. I dont know if any of you have heard of them before, but the Shaker faith was similar to this. They didnt believe in converting people to their faith, so they died out. The gays, in choosing their sexual preference, have ruled out reproduction, and so have in effect made their survival rate zero. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gays, I'm just saying their sexual preference is not viable in the long run, barring some technological advancements. 2. The Matrix, specifically Agent Smith's condemnation of humankind. This was one freaky speech. It raises all sorts of questions, the same sort of questions raised by social Darwinism. Does might really make right? Because they are better able to survive, does that mean they should? It really messes with your head. Personally, I'm not sure whether I agree with the Agents or not. They have a point. Maybe the machines are an evolution of humankind. On the flip side, well, I don't really know how to put this. Basically, do we really want such a subsisting entity to be in control of the planet. Based on the limited footage of the machines civilization, it seems all they do is make energy so they can remain operating. One could argue that that is what we humans do, grow food to remain alive, but I disagree. I was going to argue that we do more, but in fact all we do is produce more people to grow food, better ways to grow food, and if its not food we are producing, its other things to allow us to subsist with less effort. Ok, off topic time - Andromeda Strain. I think this kind of relates to the whole idea I just talked about with the Matrix. A big question in this book is 'What defines life?' The characters couldn't define it, and I'd like to know if anyone here would like to take a shot at it. Well, it wasn't supposed to be long, I apologize. This thread has allowed me to talk about all the things I've never had the impetus to discuss with any of my friends for fear of being considered loony, thanks! Life is the description of a being that has the ability to feed and reproduce itself and it's way of feeding and reproducing. I don't think I can describe it more directly. This means that the machines from the matrix are life... You should all go see some episodes of Star Trek next generation. The question is asked many times in many different ways, and have very good attempts to answer it. Look at Data for instance. Is it life? I wouldn't think so, because it hasn't got a scheme for reproducing. But if it was able to build a close copy itself, I guess it would be life.
The AIs in the Matrix were interesting, and I wish they would have shown more of it. I have the DVD and on it there are some comments about how that entire scene with Agent Smith's speech was almost entirely deleted from the movie. What defines life is not nearly as important as what defines a being as sentient.
start having ATMs that give people as much money as they want, but the more you get, the better chance you have at winning ther lottery (getting killed). wouldnt that help discourage greed a little? (plus eventually, if one was held per city/ per week or something like that, might help with the pop. also..) just a thought.
Sounds like a plan to me. ------------------ ------------------ Wow, thats really off topic, but I guess its kind of socialism, but more primitive religion. Slicer
------------------
Slicer _____________________________________________ Communism and anarchism, in principle, are terrific ideals. If things could work in practice like they do on paper, we would live in a great world. That's why it's too bad that communism is doomed to failure. Humans are far too self-centered for it to ever work. Ditto for anarchism. It's simply a restructuring of power. Revolution, the rich lose everything, and a select few gain everything. The new lower class becomes angry. Start a new revolution. Rinse, repeat. Then again, aren't we really just animals at heart? Why would we expect our tendencies to be any different? And if we are not, then when will we change? Democracy, even with it's faults, is the best system that's come along so far, without a doubt. Sure, governments can be annoying, but what's the alternative? Mass chaos?? Every man for themselves? Everyone kills each other in a desperate struggle for power, and our race ends in a bloody apocalypse?? Come on, cheer up, would yah. Also, I think a lot of you are viewing this from a very American perspective. Try to remember that the USA only constitutes 5\% of the worlds' population. Believe it or not, there are about 5.7 billion non-Americans in our world, and yes, believe it or not, they matter too. Anyway, interesting topic none the less. It's fun to talk about this kind of stuff, but in the end, when we look at the "big picture", our purpose, future, etc., let's face the facts- there is only so much we can healthily ponder. I think that if everyone in the world would (or more accurately, 'could') just sit back with a some friends and a beer (or a soda pop -FireFox [This message has been edited by Firefox (edited June 04, 2000).]
------------------ "I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots" Also, Ignorance isn't always bliss, it tends to catch up on you. But it makes a great explanation for tons of things. Like in school, I don't know about homework assignment, I don't do hwk assignment, I go have fun instead. I am ignorant, but also blissful. The next day, in class, I'm fux0red, but until then, all is bliss... That's why it will occasionally appear in my sig. Slicer Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 10, 2000).]
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
Also, I only really have 2 things that I want to respond to.
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
cool sig huh?
), and watch the sunset now and then, our world would be a heck of a lot better. Remember, when it comes down to it, the most important thing is that every one of us are here right this moment, so lets make the most of it, and who knows, maybe we can even make a little difference along the way.
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
Is Ignorance really Bliss ?
___________________________________________________________
if this is your first time at fight club, you must fight