Discuss your Opinion!

[BTGBullseye]

According to the Bible, one world government is one of the precursors to the end of the world... It'd be bad, but a part of me just wants to see the world end anyways.

 

Right now, it's totally impossible for 1WG to succeed. (too many groups that would violently oppose it, and have enough firepower to back them up)

[Binky The Rabbit]

A United Earth would require a massive restructuring of how society works, on a fundamental level. Essentially you'd want to wipe the slate clean of all previous diversity and culture, including leisure, religion, language, architecture, etc.

 

Think about a giant reset button that turns Earth into a blank canvas, to be filled in with a specific shade of grey. While you're at it, you may as well genetically modify the human race into a homogeneous singular-gender specimen - that'll sort out your human rights issues.

 

The Starcraft Terran History contains a fantasised example of how a United Earth could come about. (Long Read ahead, don't read if not interested)

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Although technology and world

culture progressed rapidly

throughout the twentieth century,

their advancements paled in comparison to

the seemingly reckless leaps that would follow.

By the end of the twenty-first century, mankind

had seen bold and unprecedented changes

within the world. Radical new technologies

were surfacing at incredible rates, offering

increased access to advanced computers and

informational databases to even the most

destitute nations of Earth. In the wake of the

eradication of Communism from the Eastern

Nations, nuclear weapons quickly became

available in abundance. The international

power structure, once defined primarily by the

acquisition of capital and military superiority,

was blasted apart as third-world nations rose

to challenge the economic and military might

of the world’s super-powers.

 

As the manipulative sciences of cybernetics,

cloning and gene-splicing rose steadily into

the public forum, militant humanist and hardline

religious groups challenged the rights of

private interest corporations who profited from

genetic experimentation. Multitudes of people

were being augmented with cybernetic

implants while others began to manifest slight

physical mutations ranging from heightened

senses to advanced telepathy. These dramatic

changes within the human gene pool caused

widespread panic amongst many of the

fundamental humanist factions.

 

Technology continued to evolve and spread,

and population rates soared. Near the end of

the twentieth century, there were six billion

people upon the earth. Within three hundred

years, the population had grown to an

estimated twenty-three billion. Pollution and

a lack of natural resources and affordable fuels

added to the fire as world leaders sought ways

to stem the growth of their nation’s inhabitants.

Popular sentiment held that the world was

plummeting towards an inevitable catastrophe

as overpopulation and genetic alteration swept

across the globe.

 

Meanwhile, as tensions rose around the

world regarding the use and capitalization of

cybernetics and genetic mutations, many core

international economic systems folded in upon

themselves and shut down. Horrific acts of

terrorism and violence erupted between the

corporate sector and the humanist factions,

resulting in forced police actions across the

globe. Irresponsible media coverage of these

atrocious police actions spurred the already

rampant civil chaos in many of the larger

countries. Ultimately, the precarious balance

of world power exploded into international

pandemonium.

 

On November 22, 2229, the United Powers

League was founded. The UPL was to become

the ultimate incarnation of the vision of a

unified humanity held by the now defunct

United Nations. This new order encompassed

and controlled close to ninety-three percent

of the earth’s population, failing only to bring

order to a few volatile South American states.

The UPL was founded upon the basis of

‘enlightened socialism’, but often resorted to

harsh, fascist police actions to maintain the

public order. With its control lasting for nearly

eighty years, the UPL began to devise a rigid

agenda that would unify the various cultures

of humanity for all time. Great lengths were

taken to eradicate the last vestiges of racial

separatism, and the Unitariate Commissions

banned many of the world’s oldest religions.

English was designated as the common tongue

of the planet, replacing many ancient

languages that were subsequently banned in

their native countries.

 

Although religions were officially banned

by the UPL, the organization held an almost

zealous belief in the supposed ‘divinity of

mankind’. This quasi-religious dogma called

for the immediate eradication of any non-vital

prosthetics or mutations amongst the purestrain

human gene pool. Hard-line UPL

proponents and scholars argued that genetic

alteration, cyber technology, and the use of

psychoactive drugs all led to the eventual

degeneration of the human species. The UPL

leaders formulated a bold plan that would

assure that humanity would persevere,

unscathed by the tempting corruption of

radical technologies.

 

Like the bloody Inquisitions that devastated

Europe eight hundred years before, the UPL

set in motion one of the harshest agendas ever

conceived by humanity: Project Purification.

This genocidal crusade was the Government’s

final solution to the matter of cleansing

humanity of its more degenerate facets. UPL

troops scoured every nation on earth, rounding

up dissidents, hackers, synthetics, the

cybernetically enhanced, tech-pirates, and

criminals of every kind. This planet-wide

culling resulted in the eradication of nearly

400,000,000 people. The world-media, now

under the strict control of the UPL,

downplayed the horrific violence and kept the

general populace of Earth unaware of the

scope of the atrocities being committed.

 

Despite their heinous acts, the UPL

succeeded in advancing many core

technologies. Fields of research that had lain

dormant for decades were opened again under

UPL control. The Space Exploration programs

of the mid-twentieth century, abandoned by

the American and Russian governments due

to drastically reduced budgets and incessant

political sabotage, became the basis for a new

era of exploration for humanity. The coupling

of cryogenic hibernation with warp-drive

technology resulted in the ability to travel

amongst the stars. Within the span of forty

years the UPL founded colonies upon the

moon and many of the other planets within

the Terran solar system.

 

[Vapymid]

I firmly believe that something as large as a planet cannot be run by a single government. I mean a government in it's proper sense - with legislative and executive powers. If anyone tries to do that they won't be able to enforce its power for long, before the stratification of the close-to-power elite and the rest of the world will generate enough resentment that it will be overthrown.

 

Now, there is still a possibility of some sort of a coordinating body - basically the UN with some teeth in it - that would manage to impose some kind of common fiscal, civil and economic standards and be able to enforce them, to some extent, on individual governments. This might just about work, but to unite sufficiently for that to appear we must have something to be united against.

 

So, until we have a viable colony on Mars having declared independence - this isn't going to happen IMHO.

 

In fact, I think humans have a built-in safeguards against such thing as the World government. We are too unruly to be herded like that. And that is a good thing. So, while the Starcraft scenario may be theoretically plausible, it will also be short-lived, to be replaced by something more like the Star Wars Republic.

 

In the meantime, I kind of agree with K4 - a number of large "empires" competing with each other, would be the optimal set up. Though "empire" would be too strongly centralised for being workable. I think more of large political-economic blocs, loosely united around leading nation-states.

 

Where I disagree completely with K4 is on the whole Hitler and National Socialism thing. All nationalist ideas are based on imaginary solutions for non-existent or falsely-identified problems. The central premise is that there is a group of people whose elimination will lead to resolution of socio-economic issues for the remaining "privileged" population. It is a fallacy which history proved wrong time and time again. Though, it is often popularly attractive purely because it appears so simple and the apparent solution always looks like a "low-hanging fruit".

 

Regards

[Binky The Rabbit]

  Vapymid said:

The central premise is that there is a group of people whose elimination will lead to resolution of socio-economic issues for the remaining "privileged" population.

 

That's why I'm only roughly 70% in support of The Scottish National Party. They're doing a good job for my home constituency, and generally doing good all over Scotland. But the Pro-Independent stance allows for the idiotic ScotlandVEngland rivalry/prejudice to have more of a presence. Pride and Patriotism shouldn't be mixed with politics.

[Vapymid]

Couldn't agree more... But they always are, unfortunately. "Us v Them" - as old a political trick as the world itself...

 

Regards

[Jeb_CC]

Subject #18 - Torture

 

Okay, I think the majority of us knows just how fucked up the dark ages were, and the ways in which people were tortured. Sometimes, people were tortured simply because they were different. X3 And that's a bunch of bollocks. However, torture IS a method of getting information out of people. And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But do you think we should be using torture, in this day and age, as a way of getting what we want? Not torture just to harm someone for the fun of it, but to actually get some benefit out of it - for the good of a larger community.

I'm kinda on the fence of it. Torture is HORRIBLE. But it works. I'm not exactly too sure on what else can be done that is similar to torture, but I dunno... torture just sounds so... harsh. There's also misunderstandings that come with it. Some guy gets picked up who is a suspected leader for a devious plot. Turns out he's not, but we've just been torturing him for weeks for no good reason. That fact scares the shit out of me.

I remember watching 'The Railway Man' - based on a true story, and in it, the main character of the film was tortured for weeks because of a misunderstanding. :S Poor guy. Was awful watching the torture scenes. XD Ugh. So cringe-full.

 

But yeah, what do ya'll think? :3

[Reverend_UshankaCat_]

Subject #18:

Well I know how horrible and sick it sounds, but let's be serious: torture is sometimes the only smart thing to do. It of course doesn't work when you're just trying to get someone to answer a yes/no question, but imagine a scenario in which some little kid gets kidnapped. The police find the kidnapper (he admitted it was him), but not the kid. Time is running out, no one knows where to look. And the kidnapper only says "Ha! You'll never find him!"

In this case, I'd say just waterboard the shit out of him. What's the alternative? Ask nicely? Tell him he'll go to prison?

[Vapymid]

Torture never works if what you want is to obtain trustworthy information.

 

You can submit someone's will by torture and that may be useful if you're after some kinky sexual kicks but that's about it. By the way - that's what torture is really being used for. For self-gratification of the tormentors - be it Abu Graib, or Guantanamo or some shit-hole in Syria - all the torture is being done by perverted individuals for their own perverted pleasure. And it was the same for the Inquisition and for the Gestapo and for NKVD and take any other example.

 

There is no place for state-administered or state-sponsored torture in a civilised society. Hello, America, you hear that, right?

 

Regards

[Binky The Rabbit]

  Vapymid said:

For self-gratification of the tormentors

Yep. Torture porn. It's a thing.

 

If you want to completely destroy someone, you torture them until they turn into someone else (for example, Winston Smith in '1984'). A simple bullet to the head means that person dies as that person, meaning they still exist to a certain extent. If you break someone to the point that they forget who they are, then psychologically that person is dead. And that is a much fuller death than simply breaking their body.

 

Consequently, you can use torture as a means to get what want, but it may not necessarily be the truth (2+2=5).

 

I'm unsure how reliable truth serum/hypnosis is, but that may be a more effective method.

[Vapymid]

Wasn't LSD supposed to be a truth serum originally? I think it was pretty effective in lowering inhibitions With the little unfortunate side effect of causing trips and hallucinations

 

"Yes, officer, and then I saw the victim being hit in the face by Archangel Azrael hisself, I swear!"

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

  Vapymid said:

Torture never works if what you want is to obtain trustworthy information.

This is something taught to all military personnel in the USA.

 

It is incorrect that this applies to everyone. It mainly applies to those who are withholding information by will, not out of fear. (unless it's an incredibly strong fear) Just really not easy to determine who it will or won't work on, so it's better to not bother.

 

Torture can be physical or mental... So far everyone has talked about physical torture, but nothing about mental torture has arrisen. Mental torture would be someone who grabs your loved ones, and starts tearing off their fingernails in front of you, until you tell them the information they want. This can be an extremely effective method for most purposes, but is also among the worst violations of human rights I can think of. It is also the most common form of torture in the world today. (though the least publicized)

[Jeb_CC]

@BTG: That's kinda strange in some way... in one room, you'd have a human being is so compassionate, they'd do anything as long as they ensure their loved one's safety. Then there's the torturer, someone who's probably been trained to just not give a fuck, perhaps cruel, uncaring. Torture is horrible. :S Just thinking about that mental method of torture... *shivers* Ergh.

 

Subject #19: This or That?

You have $5000 to give away - strictly to give away to one of the following charities - no splitting:

A charity for families in financial need in poverty stricken areas...

Or...

A charity to help fund for cure research towards a variety of diseases and conditions/perhaps also give money to the sick in need...

 

Personally, I'd give the $5000 to the first charity organisation - for poverty filled areas. I feel like, with that amount of money, a LOT could be done, and that would be easily seen - how the money impacts whoever is received with the financial aid. It could go towards food, maybe rent, education, health...

To be honest, I can't exactly figure out why though I prefer the first option than the second. Diseases are absolutely horrible, and they're terrible, but so is being starved and jobless. Diseases however can affect people for long periods of time, can be financially draining. Disease research takes time. The first option though, just having a little bit of money has an immediate effect. Go to the shops, get some noms. X3 I feel like I'm kinda on the fence, but leaning to the first option. But that's just me. If I want to donate to somebody, I want to see some immediate change.

What would you guys do?

[rairii]

First one for sure

 

Disease researchers get all sorts of funding all the time. The issue isn't that we're not curing disease, we're definitely curing it, the issue is that we're not looking in to how to prevent it. Curing patients makes money where making sure they won't get sick in the first place costs money. It's as simple as that, really.

 

I'd rather see a couple of homeless person off the street with my $5,000 than see a cancer research center accomplish basically nothing.

[BTGBullseye]

  Username said:

First one for sure

Agreed.

 

  Username said:

The issue isn't that we're not curing disease, we're definitely curing it, the issue is that we're not looking in to how to prevent it. Curing patients makes money where making sure they won't get sick in the first place costs money. It's as simple as that, really.

Actually, the money is in treating the illness... There's no money in cures. (hence why we still don't have the cure for cancer, it would sink the pharmaceutical companies financially)

 

  Username said:

I'd rather see a couple of homeless person off the street with my $5,000 than see a cancer research center accomplish basically nothing.

100% agree. Most homeless would be able to live comfortably for 6 months to a year on $5000.

[Vapymid]

Yes, it's the first one for me too...

 

For a disease research charity - $5,000 means a few nice trips to a posh restaurant for the executive management... Nothing else will be accomplished... Sorry, for being cynical but most of such "charities" simply are lobby groups for the industry.

 

Regards

[Binky The Rabbit]

Hmmmm. Yeah, I'll choose the first one too. There's a lot of money around, but most of it is landing in the pockets of people who already have more than they'll ever need, and staying there.

 

To these people, £/$1 million is neither here nor there. That amount of money could be used help an entire, impoverished community. But nope, lock away it in a tax haven where it can gain interest indefinitely.

[Jeb_CC]

Wow, okay, I made a terrible question didn't I?

Alright, suppose I change it to...

Either donating $5000 to people in poverty, orrrr... Give it to people who are too financially unstable to afford the dire healthcare they need. Does that work a little better? (Let's also assume you're not in America... so your $5000 is going to save more than one person, not pay for the 10 year old's dental checkup. )

And I mean dire as in... If you don't get this healthcare, you gonna die. But with the poverty, it'd be more; "You could die today, tomorrow, or any other day." But they'd be living comfortably. Any better? Or still the same? 1st option you'd be ensuring safety and health in numerous numbers for a long time. 2nd option, short term but you might just save two or three lives.

 

I guess the idea with like... Disease research and stuff, they already have the money, they're just needy snots is all. XP

 

And I'm pretty sure that even if you are in dire need of help, they'd kick the money out of you anyway - so you'd be in heavy debt. But... Let's just pretend we're in my world for a day please. XD I'm trying to resurrect this subject.

"You can't live if you don't have the money." Is the new law of the day. XP Hehe. How cruel.

[BTGBullseye]

With your new question, it's the second one without a doubt...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

 

People don't need handouts to survive poverty, but they do need handouts to survive deadly sicknesses if they don't have the money for treatment.

 

You're giving out really simple, and obvious choices... If it was between poverty, and say lower-importance dental care, that would be a more difficult decision.

[Jeb_CC]

Gosh dammit. I'm terrible at this. Fine. XD Let's just go with BTG's option then. Since I'm OBVIOUSLY incapable.

 

  BTGBullseye said:

... If it was between poverty, and say lower-importance dental care...

[BTGBullseye]

I personally would rather pay for dental care, provided it wasn't for something mundane, like a cleaning.