The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Your version of the ideal world.
russia32
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
If you had complete control of mankind's destiny, what would you do? Think of yourself as an immortal global dictator, unquestioned by humans.
What would the global population be? Would there be different classes? Or countries? Would there be religion? What would cities be like?
Would the world be similar to as it is or something vastly different, almost alien?
What would the global population be? Would there be different classes? Or countries? Would there be religion? What would cities be like?
Would the world be similar to as it is or something vastly different, almost alien?
russia32 on
0
Posts
Also, everyone who wanted one would have an afterlife pony.
Except _J_, he's not there.
Extensive psychological profiles are used to help make sure communities are only made up of people who are compatible with each other. When problems arise, communities are reorganized in whatever way best resolves the conflict (volatile combinations are separated and integrated into communities that are likely to be more suitable for each person).
No ownership, no marriage. Any "permanent" coupling is acceptable so long as it doesn't create problems in a group, and if it does a couple is moved to a group that will be more accepting. Abusive relationships are dealt with in the best way possible.
If you want me to dream, I would first strive for what I mentioned, then I would concentrate mankinds effort toward space and science. I would make reserves for people not willing to live in my free society and place free foodbanks at the edges.
How much crime will this solve? How much environmental damage can this prevent? What will people care about if there is (good) free food and housing for everyone? What will the salvation army become?
In the first case, I'd make a confederation of smaller nations. Each member nation is free to do things as they want, provided that they respect some basic Confederation gound rules, such as being democratic (and no jerrymandering or other cheating techniques), respecting a charter of human rights, and so on.
In the second case, I'd just give everyone infinite ressources and fix all woes and be done with it.
In the third case, nothing comes to mind. I believe that if we go back and fix bad turns in history, humanity will just find a way to make it go bad in some other way at some other time. We'll be time-travelling forever, and never actually improving anything.
And no religion. I'm not sure how I'd accomplish that, probably manditory education in a number of different things, including classes in critical thinking and logic from an early age.
no countries, one federal government.
that covers most of the bases.
EDIT: one language.
I would advocate a global society based on freedom as the one founding principle. No hierarchy would exist in either the economy or law, and law would only exist as a bare minimum--protecting freedom and not inhibiting it.
It's anarcho-syndicalism, technically, but don't let the name put you off. I typically go about calling myself a libertarian socialist to avoid complete alienation.
Anyway, if we're talking far-future a sort of technate would be hopefully included, in which resources could be generated, assembled, and manufactured without human labor.
Having one single language might make life a bit easier for people, but I don't see it as such a major issue that it needs to be included in our visions of a perfect world.
The question is a perfect world, and in a perfect world, I could communicate with anyone...barring declaring that in my perfect world we have crazy awesome automatic translators, I'd much rather just say that yes, in a perfect world, everyone speaks two languages, their own, and a universal language used to conduct affairs with people who don't speak your native language.
Psychic link for unhindered communication between people of different languages? Uh... either a population with a maximum of 1 or 2 billion... or a huge population across an empire with multiple planets?
So one no world state, no unlimited resources, no one language, no abolition of religion.
Also, I'm incredibly doubtful of the claim that infinite resources would actually solve everything. Of course it would help, but it's not enough.
inability to communicate strikes me as an extremely important problem. there are no benefits to multiple languages, not to mention the tribalistic problem of people defining in/out groups based on languages.
we shouldn't have to spend years of schooling just to learn how to talk to someone else. i'm not sure why that's so difficult to comprehend as a beneficial ideal.
Cultural preservation? But we're talking about a perfect world, not our world.
i don't think some cultures (or aspects of some cultures) are worth preserving.
Well, considering that we're talking about omnipotent world shaping, I'm sure we could make it work.
Also, it would be a law that every city must have at least one huge musical number a week regarding one of the following: love, justice, vengeance, honor, duty.
Different languages have words for concepts that can be missing from other languages. They can describe things with greater or lesser details. They can be more expressive or more simple. All languages are not equal. And you can't make a fictional perfect language that has all the advantages and none of the problems of all real languages, as a lot of these advantages are mutually exclusive and a lot of the problems are consequences of other things we consider advantages.
Language is also a window into a people's culture and history. A people's language isn't a static, randomly-assigned thing. It's a consequence of their cultural evolution as a society. By eliminating it, you're eliminating part of their culture.
I've never seen people use language as a definition of in/out cultural groups. It's used as a simplification of the definition. In Québec for instance, the struggle between Francophones and Anglophones isn't strictly about language. It's a struggle of culture and identity stretching back centuries in which the two main parties have very different histories and visions for the future, and which is refered to by language because saying everything I've just said is just too cumbersome. But don't mistake this simplification in notation with a simplification of the issues.
I don't consider years of schooling to be detrimental in and of itself, so I don't see going to great lenghts to avoid it as beneficial.
elaborate.
nothing* wrong with adding terminology to an existing language.
look at the japanese.
i don't think all aspects of a culture are intrinsically valuable, as i noted in a previous post.
i'm not suggesting that language is the only contentious issue, but it certainly doesn't help. look at africa. effective communication is vital for people who want to get along.
schooling itself isn't detrimental. i, for one, enjoy the hell out of it. but when you have the option of opting out of a subject altogether because it's simply no longer valuable, you can spend your time at school in a more productive way.
*not a lot. and the japanese may have been a bad example. but whatever.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
that doesn't really play into my desire to have only one language. mostly, it just seems to stand to reason that easier communication = easier relations.
How about just going with e-prime? I think eliminating all forms of the verb "to be" would actually solve a lot of problems.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
i was going to be more pragmatic and just go with an existing popular language, but as long as i have unlimited dictatorial powers, yeah, i'd make up a new one.
What about genders? Some languages have two, some have dozens. Some languages have a neutral gender, some don't. There are advantages and inconvenients to all these - obviously more genders makes your language more detailed and expressive, while less makes it simpler and easier to learn. Neutral gender is useful for gender-neutral objects, but can lead to abuses (for instance, refering to your political enemies as "it" instead of "s/he" to dehumanize them).
My point is, there's no such thing as a perfect language. It's impossible. Your universal language will be imperfect, and will lock us in an imperfect state by banning all other languages.
It seems to me that, the only reason you find language a non-valuable part of culture is that it's hard to learn. If that's the case, you're wrong. If not, you're making a lousy job explaining yourself.
If humans really wanted to get along, I doubt language would be an obstacle. Bilingual people aren't hard to find.
i disagree. language simply is a means to convey meaning and intentions. to communicate. some languages may be more effective than others, but none are unique in the notions they can express, because the reality that words describe exists outside of language.
i fail to see your point. we can express different feelings towards people and objects in any language. if we wish to note that a person or object is effeminate, its not so hard to say. it might not be as florid as you're accustomed to, depending on the language in question, but ideas can be, again, conveyed in virtually any language. if a language lacks words, add some more or combine existing words. languages evolve to reflect the reality they describe.
i'm not looking for a perfect language. i'm looking for a single language that serves the purpose of conveying as many ideas as possible. a variety of languages don't lend themselves to "perfection" any more than a single language does.
no, that would be a reason that i find multiple languages to be undesirable. i find them non-valuable because meaning and intention and such exists outside of language. we just have to have the words to describe it.
um, to the best of my knowledge, there's far more than two languages in the world. communicating effectively with a person from both china and the sudan would likely consume a fair amount of my life simply in preparation. if i throw a russian or argentinian in to the mix, that's a significantly longer chunk of my life.
Small city-states, independent in internal affairs, ruled by a confederation.
Many languages, but one Common language that everyone learns at a young age so communication is not an issue.
No religion.
Much less income and resource-distribution inequality than in our current world, but individuals still have a chance to work hard and set themselves apart from the rest (but not at the expense of others).
Free, high-quality healthcare and education.
And finally, men are outnumbered by women on a scale of one to fifty. :winky:
1. Take control over the worlds oil reserves.
This resource becomes the property of the people of earth, not multinational cooperations ,dictators, or specific countries. Regulate the price, but more importantly, dictate where and when this resource can be used. Oil becomes cheap for construction, food production (farming),and mass transport,but heavily taxed for personal use in motor vehicles.
2. Encourage renewable energy
Subsidize all forms of personal renewable energy technology with the money received taxing oil. Cars, Solar Panels, you name it, is much cheaper. People buy it all up, and companies produce more and more and put more funds into research of more efficient technologies. Once production is widespread and cheap for companies, slowly lessen subsidies as the price plummets. (this wouldn't work if people suddenly stopped using fossil fuels because it costs more, which as shown in the past few years doesn't happen that easily. People will bleed money for gasoline until they are forced to choose the cheaper alternative. Cruel, but necessary).
I would certainly do more to the world, but it would take me ages to type out.
Malice is soooo much work.
Well, to be fair, that's mostly because what we want is based on a contrast with what we're suffering at the moment.
I wonder if that's a bad thing... :P
I wonder if wondering about that is a bad thing...
[spoiler:30abf3b164]GODDAMN YOU FREUD! I guess! And... some other psychologiffic dudes, you![/spoiler:30abf3b164]