If we are to make the world a better place....

[QUOTE="Oey666"][QUOTE="BiancaDK"] Can I ask what made you include space exploration as one of the things that efforts should be funneled into?immortality20

So, after you demolish all currencies and all economies into one, you want to then use that money to travel something that is proven to be inhabitable? Oh, who runs this, a senate? A senate can't even run ONE country, how the hell can it run a world, and then agree on this as primary source of income?

I'm not saying you're in high school, but once you graduate, real world will be much eye opening for you.

WOW! Now that's a thinker... /end sarcams Please just read me reply to you above and then decide if you want to continue arguing. I'm right andyou're wrong, have you considered that?

[QUOTE="blazblue152"]

'tis a shame that people can't see the brilliancy of the TC. What's worse is that I don't see any eligible arguement with him, just people mocking him or expressing their selfish opinions that does not contribute to the masses.

testfactor888

You realize that this post is making you very ignorant (the post itself, not you, please don't be offended)? by saying this you are actually slowly but surely destroying the humanity, that include your mother and mine, our children and everyone, including ourselves, do you not care about yourself?

Let me rephrase the "masses": 'tis a shame that people can't see the brilliancy of the TC. What's worse is that I don't see any eligible arguement with him, just people mocking him or expressing their selfish opinions that does not contribute to the earth.

[QUOTE="immortality20"]

[QUOTE="blazblue152"]

'tis a shame that people can't see the brilliancy of the TC. What's worse is that I don't see any eligible arguement with him, just people mocking him or expressing their selfish opinions that does not contribute to the masses.

Oey666

No really, tell us more. Tell us as you mock us, believing we don't have brains against arguments filled with holes.

How can I put this??? You do not understand the matter I'm (we're) discussing. Until you do, nothing you say will "fit" into this arguement. You focus too much on the actual sentences and words rather than see the true matter.

You may read the posts, but based off of your responses, you do not understand. Unlike testfactor, he/she has clearly statet that he/she is not a person with empathy or sympathy, but sees only him/herself. testfactor is, as many others, a relic of the past. Strongest persons rights and all that.That type of thinking does not bode well if we, humanity, are to ensure survival and prosper into the future.

I'm sorry, I am a little confused. You're saying I'm focusing on what you wrote, and not what you meant? Philosophy is great and all, but yours just doesn't make sense. A World Order (for surely countries without borders and one income will constitute this) means communism. In the greatest sense, one for all and that all gets to deem what one gets.

If you want to fight the good fight I completly support you, just not on the arguments you chose. For I fear any of those would lead to further destruction. A couple points.

1. No religion - Sounds great and all, but there's some people who HAVE to have something to believe in. Without this, they will surely kill. Just as surely as they will kill with it and for it.
2. No more military weapons. Sounds nice, but what happens when there is the inevitable uprising about any issue? What happens when there is no way to maintain order?
3. Changing education, because it teaches everything the same way, well lead to education teaching everything the same way. Except it'll be a new way, but it'd still be constant.

In short, I don't see any of it plausable. Even if it were, would you want to live under ONE dictator, or maybe a group of dictators? Surely they'd vote eachother in, holding a 6 billion or so election would see impossible.

I agree the world is running itself down a ugly drain, but if we say we shouldn't fight, one would fight for their right to fight. If everyone has a predetermined job, with a predetermined salary, with a predetermined life (if it ever succeeded to such a point) would really want to live it? Knowing you can't do any better in life then the strict guidelines set out for you?

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="blazblue152"]

'tis a shame that people can't see the brilliancy of the TC. What's worse is that I don't see any eligible arguement with him, just people mocking him or expressing their selfish opinions that does not contribute to the masses.

blazblue152

You realize that this post is making you very ignorant (the post itself, not you, please don't be offended)? by saying this you are actually slowly but surely destroying the humanity, that include your mother and mine, our children and everyone, including ourselves, do you not care about yourself?

Let me rephrase the "masses": 'tis a shame that people can't see the brilliancy of the TC. What's worse is that I don't see any eligible arguement with him, just people mocking him or expressing their selfish opinions that does not contribute to the earth.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Oey666"]Hopelessly so, it seems. :)Oey666

Yes. The resources we have at our disposal on earth are limited. By exploring space and adapting to this inhospitable environment we can assure our race, humanity, a looooong run, rather then going down in history as one of the sapient species that managed to destroy ourselves with war and pollution over petty issues.

Our resources are indeed limited, but that does not mean they do not come in abundance. Our planet is being fed more energy by our star than we can ever hope to consume, and a good ~70% of our planets surface is covered in water, another largely untapped source for food and energy. Our advances in the agricultural field during the late 20th century has left us with tools that if in effect, could feed the world if evenly distributed. There are still vast, vast planes of land surface fit for human expansion, and we have the capacity to grow more trees than we cut down, an example of this can be found in the U.S where there are more trees now than there were 70 years ago. The process that it would take to sustain the lungs of the world is a realistic process.

Regarding the self-destruction of our race; we as a species have had the capability to turn the world into a crisp glass ball since the early days of Oppenheimer. We have engineered highly virulent viruses that could solve any problematic revolving overpopulation in XYZ region, yet have have not done so, and we haven't utilized them in any armed conflicts as of date. Our conflicts are local, we keep them local, and they are in the grand scheme of things (minus geofinances), miniscule.

Finally, the pollution issues are grim, but we do not have to go into space in order to solve them. They are local problems and can be solved locally by steps already developed by modern sciences. It is in the hands of the politicians to utilize them and in the hands of the lobbyists to advocate them.

I'd like to point out that these are merely arguments against the funnelling of resources into space exploration, they are not arguments that serve to invalidate your overall schematic.

[QUOTE="blazblue152"]

[QUOTE="testfactor888"] I don't care about the masses though :)testfactor888

You realize that this post is making you very ignorant (the post itself, not you, please don't be offended)? by saying this you are actually slowly but surely destroying the humanity, that include your mother and mine, our children and everyone, including ourselves, do you not care about yourself?

Let me rephrase the "masses": 'tis a shame that people can't see the brilliancy of the TC. What's worse is that I don't see any eligible arguement with him, just people mocking him or expressing their selfish opinions that does not contribute to the earth.

That's a very gloomy look on the world. :(

See this is what atheism (assuming you are an atheist, if you aren't then skip this post) do, it destroys the hope for the masses and earth, that's why I look down on it, not as a religious person, but as a human being.

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="blazblue152"]

You realize that this post is making you very ignorant (the post itself, not you, please don't be offended)? by saying this you are actually slowly but surely destroying the humanity, that include your mother and mine, our children and everyone, including ourselves, do you not care about yourself?

Let me rephrase the "masses": 'tis a shame that people can't see the brilliancy of the TC. What's worse is that I don't see any eligible arguement with him, just people mocking him or expressing their selfish opinions that does not contribute to the earth.

blazblue152

That's a very gloomy look on the world. :(

See this what atheism (assuming you are an atheist, if you aren't then skip this post) do, it destroys the hope for the masses and earth, that's why I look down on it, not as a religious person, but as a human being.

[QUOTE="Oey666"]

[QUOTE="immortality20"]

No really, tell us more. Tell us as you mock us, believing we don't have brains against arguments filled with holes.

immortality20

How can I put this??? You do not understand the matter I'm (we're) discussing. Until you do, nothing you say will "fit" into this arguement. You focus too much on the actual sentences and words rather than see the true matter.

You may read the posts, but based off of your responses, you do not understand. Unlike testfactor, he/she has clearly statet that he/she is not a person with empathy or sympathy, but sees only him/herself. testfactor is, as many others, a relic of the past. Strongest persons rights and all that.That type of thinking does not bode well if we, humanity, are to ensure survival and prosper into the future.

I'm sorry, I am a little confused. You're saying I'm focusing on what you wrote, and not what you meant? Philosophy is great and all, but yours just doesn't make sense. A World Order (for surely countries without borders and one income will constitute this) means communism. In the greatest sense, one for all and that all gets to deem what one gets.

If you want to fight the good fight I completly support you, just not on the arguments you chose. For I fear any of those would lead to further destruction. A couple points.

1. No religion - Sounds great and all, but there's some people who HAVE to have something to believe in. Without this, they will surely kill. Just as surely as they will kill with it and for it.
2. No more military weapons. Sounds nice, but what happens when there is the inevitable uprising about any issue? What happens when there is no way to maintain order?
3. Changing education, because it teaches everything the same way, well lead to education teaching everything the same way. Except it'll be a new way, but it'd still be constant.

In short, I don't see any of it plausable. Even if it were, would you want to live under ONE dictator, or maybe a group of dictators? Surely they'd vote eachother in, holding a 6 billion or so election would see impossible.

I agree the world is running itself down a ugly drain, but if we say we shouldn't fight, one would fight for their right to fight. If everyone has a predetermined job, with a predetermined salary, with a predetermined life (if it ever succeeded to such a point) would really want to live it? Knowing you can't do any better in life then the strict guidelines set out for you?

Good points, I agree with you, and as stated before, I think there should be some sort of system to deal with them, but you gotta agree that a unified, peaceful, and productive world sound catchy to you (the TC main idea), no? ;)

I'm sorry, I am a little confused. You're saying I'm focusing on what you wrote, and not what you meant? Philosophy is great and all, but yours just doesn't make sense. A World Order (for surely countries without borders and one income will constitute this) means communism. In the greatest sense, one for all and that all gets to deem what one gets.

If you want to fight the good fight I completly support you, just not on the arguments you chose. For I fear any of those would lead to further destruction. A couple points.

1. No religion - Sounds great and all, but there's some people who HAVE to have something to believe in. Without this, they will surely kill. Just as surely as they will kill with it and for it.
2. No more military weapons. Sounds nice, but what happens when there is the inevitable uprising about any issue? What happens when there is no way to maintain order?
3. Changing education, because it teaches everything the same way, well lead to education teaching everything the same way. Except it'll be a new way, but it'd still be constant.

In short, I don't see any of it plausable. Even if it were, would you want to live under ONE dictator, or maybe a group of dictators? Surely they'd vote eachother in, holding a 6 billion or so election would see impossible.

I agree the world is running itself down a ugly drain, but if we say we shouldn't fight, one would fight for their right to fight. If everyone has a predetermined job, with a predetermined salary, with a predetermined life (if it ever succeeded to such a point) would really want to live it? Knowing you can't do any better in life then the strict guidelines set out for you?

Man, I messed up the quote...

Well now you're much easier to talk to, if I may point it out.

The terms you are using: Dictatorship, communism and such is not applicable to the world order (if you like). This isn't something thatis to be forced upon people (even though that would take waaayy less time) but achieved through an understanding based off of that the way we're currently doing things aren't working out too good for 7 out of 10 inhabitants. It is only through this understanding and willingness to make serious change that we can brake free from the issues that plague our race and our planet.

You cannot apply logic that works in today's society, into the society of tomorrow. History has shown us this again and again. My fear is that we, most people (common people) does not recognize this until we're at the very brink. Sadly, I do think that thismay bethe only moment this can happen, when things are worse then ever and people all over the world are forced to say; enough is enough.

That is why I made my initial post. To make a few people think about this and maybe help with some new thinking and new ideas. The things I listed are among the absolute worst examples that needs to be addressed, not necessarily in the way I depicted it.

This is the issue.

[QUOTE="blazblue152"]

[QUOTE="testfactor888"] You can call me ignorant if you want I just consider myself selfish. I don't really care about the Earth or anything like that. I am ok with the world falling apart around me as I only care about my family and myself. I am not an anarchist or anything like that I just honestly don't care about the issues you are bringing up. My family will end with me as I am not having children. After I am dead whatever happens to the world will not be my problem so till than I will live my life the way I want. Thats about all I can say to you on this :)testfactor888

That's a very gloomy look on the world. :(

See this what atheism (assuming you are an atheist, if you aren't then skip this post) do, it destroys the hope for the masses and earth, that's why I look down on it, not as a religious person, but as a human being.

You should give religion a shot and some further research (Abrahmic religions to precise). A lot of atheists have misconception about them, maybe you're one of them, maybe you'll discover what I did and become enlightened in a whole different manner ;)

[QUOTE="testfactor888"]

[QUOTE="blazblue152"]

That's a very gloomy look on the world. :(

See this what atheism (assuming you are an atheist, if you aren't then skip this post) do, it destroys the hope for the masses and earth, that's why I look down on it, not as a religious person, but as a human being.

blazblue152

You should give religion a shot and some further research (Abrahmic religions to precise). A lot of atheists have misconception about them, maybe you're one of them, maybe you'll discover what I did and become enlightened in a whole different manner ;)

Bianca: yes, natural resources are in abundance, but our planet can only support a certain amount of people. When we overstep that bound and have no secondary source it'll just get ugly all over again. Oey666

There are local sociological settings that can halt the process of overpopulation and even turn the demographic age-pyramid upside down (Japan being the most prominent example of this, but it's a general tendency in western countries which also show symptomes of this)

I see it as a problematic that can be alleviated locally by perfectly observable examples, today. We have models where we can, going entirely by what happens within the state, predict the birthrate of the populace. In other words; the population number is completely governed by criterias found on a local plane, subsequently one cannot help but reason that the solution to the problem can also be found on the same plane. I do not see how space exploration can serve as a sensible solution to this.

[QUOTE="Oey666"]Bianca: yes, natural resources are in abundance, but our planet can only support a certain amount of people. When we overstep that bound and have no secondary source it'll just get ugly all over again. BiancaDK

There are local sociological settings that can halt the process of overpopulation and even turn the demographic age-pyramid upside down (Japan being the most prominent example of this, but it's a general tendency in western countries which also show symptomes of this)

I see it as a problematic that can be alleviated locally by perfectly observable examples, today. We have models where we can, going entirely by what happens within the state, predict the birthrate of the populace. In other words; the population number is completely governed by criterias found on a local plane, subsequently one cannot help but reason that the solution to the problem can also be found on the same plane. I do not see how space exploration can serve as a sensible solution to this.

You clearly know a lot more about this than I. But you still get my point; Instead of developing weapons, we could increase funding and resources in toher areas. 10 years ago the spending on weapons development was 50 times higher compared to development within the field of medicine. Somethings wrong right there...

Alright TC, i am keeping my promise from before (at work now)

These are some of the things that needs to be changed:

• Materialistic values must be not be continued.

This is good in theory. But without those desires, production will fall drastically.
Example:
A farmer grows more food than he needs to provide for his family's basic needs b/c he wants more 'things'for him and his children...these materialistic desires (for more than what is necessary) drive people to do and make 'more'.
Now have that happen worldwide and you can hopefully see the problem...people would only produce the min. needed to get by

• Religion must go or values in main world religions must be heavily modified.

You are going to have be specific here...because most religions teach love, tolerance, and forgiveness...not to mention all the charity work they do.
So I do not know what you are trying to get rid of.
It is not the fault of religion that people have twisted the teachings...that is a people issue, not a religious one

• All drugs/narcotics must be grown/produced, distributed and controlled by the state.

I think that drugs should be decriminalized, taxed, and overseen by the gov (like tobacco and medicine). But I am not comfortable with gov. control
-see all the programs being run by gov. in a wasteful, non-efficient manner for support

• All borders must be removed.

Why is that?
Then you would have huge population shifts...this would lead to overcrowding, a scarcity of resources, and increased violence in 'desirable' places to live.

• All local laws must be removed and replaced with world laws.

Why should all groups of people have to live under laws they do not agree with?
People enact laws to serve them...the laws are meant to serve us, we are not meant to serve the laws.
A law that is necessary/desirable in one area is not necessarily desirable in another.
People should be free to decide (together) what laws they want to serve them in a particular area

• Present economic system must be replaced with a real-value system. Meaning; you cannot "make" values (money) out of nothing. All values must be grounded to something concrete.

What about all the jobs that are necessary but are not concrete. Just because you do not 'make something' does not mean you have not provided something of value
-seeall service industry jobs

• A one world currency must be introduced.

Not a bad idea, but too difficult to implement IMO. Though I would be interested in your proposed implementation strategy.

• All military-grade weapons research must end. Instead the resources currently allocated to this must shift to research within the field of medicine, free energy and space exploration.

People will always feel the need to defend what is theirs...no matter if there are 100 or 1 forms of gov.
...the demand will always be there unless you modify people (not possible or ethical IMO)

Also, many ofour advances are due to weapons research

Free energy is nice in theory...but where is the motivation to provide and maintain something that is free

Why the obsession with space? We have not even fully explored the Earth yet. Also, I think we need to solve our issues here before we take them into space

• All national dept between countries and the world bank must be erased. We need to start over.

Why would countries forgive the debt that is owed to them? That would only hurt them. That would be advocating what is best for one country at the expense of another.
Furthermore, the situation would only start again. Loans are what fuels growth. So countries (like banks) will always be loaning money to other countries.
...unless you would like to see loans (and economic growth) end

• A "max income" must be established for all jobs. No one person needs to accumulate the ridiculous amount of values that some people are able to do today.

See my farmer example. People would only work till they earned their max and would then 'quit' for the year.
-this would stifle production and kill motivation

Also, why would people do more difficult jobs if there was not an increased incentive over 'easier' jobs

• Schools and education system must be changed to meet the variety of people. Todays system more or less force everyone to learn the same stuff in the same way.

I agree. But that would require a huge increase in spending (smaller cIasses, more teachers, bigger buildings, etc)
If you give more to one area, you have to be willing to spend less in another...what are you going to cut?

• Prison must only be used with major offences: Murder, rape, gross violence, gross ignorance (DUIwith a result of injury as an example)and such. All other violations must be punished by communal service and further education.

Rehabilitation has proved to be ineffective. So I wonder what you would like to do for that.
I agree that drug offenses (personal consumption w/out injury) should not result in prison time.
But all other things (fraud, theft, harming another) should still result in harsh punishments.

Oey666

You clearly know a lot more about this than I. But you still get my point; Instead of developing weapons, we could increase funding and resources in toher areas. 10 years ago the spending on weapons development was 50 times higher compared to development within the field of medicine. Somethings wrong right there...

Oey666

Yes, I get your overall point, it was just the need for space exploration that threw me a bit off, since I've never seen a reasonable argument as to why our race should venture into space in the near-future.

Ideologically speaking (given that all ethical and pragmatic problems simpled just worked themselves out in the process), I'm largely with you. It's a neat dream.

Warfare will never end

Alright TC, i am keeping my promise from before (at work now)

[QUOTE="Oey666"]

These are some of the things that needs to be changed:

• Materialistic values must be not be continued.

This is good in theory. But without those desires, production will fall drastically.
Example:
A farmer grows more food than he needs to provide for his family's basic needs b/c he wants more 'things'for him and his children...these materialistic desires (for more than what is necessary) drive people to do and make 'more'.
Now have that happen worldwide and you can hopefully see the problem...people would only produce the min. needed to get by

The materialistic values I speak of is not the same one you mention. I'm talking about the increasing popular desire to accumulate sickening amounts of materialistic wealth. Take a look at "sweet sixteen" on MTV. Does it not disgust you? That is the problem I'm addressing.

• Religion must go or values in main world religions must be heavily modified.

You are going to have be specific here...because most religions teach love, tolerance, and forgiveness...not to mention all the charity work they do.
So I do not know what you are trying to get rid of.
It is not the fault of religion that people have twisted the teachings...that is a people issue, not a religious one

From a previous discussion with you regarding religion I know what you stand for (good things)and I agree with you somewhat. The main problem I have with religion is its ability to take something natural and twist it so that people think it's bad...but for the most parts, the values within most popular religions are rooted in love and understanding.

• All drugs/narcotics must be grown/produced, distributed and controlled by the state.

I think that drugs should be decriminalized, taxed, and overseen by the gov (like tobacco and medicine). But I am not comfortable with gov. control
-see all the programs being run by gov. in a wasteful, non-efficient manner for support

Heavy bureaucracy aside, the current handling of the drug issues only does this: puts money into people who need it for war or accumulate wast amounts of wealth. Nothing else. Imprisoningusers again puts money into the people who run the prisons, nothing else. The whole system regarding the legality of the substance to the handling of the user when caught is as corrupt as it can be.

• All borders must be removed.

Why is that?
Then you would have huge population shifts...this would lead to overcrowding, a scarcity of resources, and increased violence in 'desirable' places to live.

You may have a very valid point. However, by removing the borders we make it one step closer to making people realise that we are in fact in the same small "boat".

• All local laws must be removed and replaced with world laws.

Why should all groups of people have to live under laws they do not agree with?
People enact laws to serve them...the laws are meant to serve us, we are not meant to serve the laws.
A law that is necessary/desirable in one area is not necessarily desirable in another.
People should be free to decide (together) what laws they want to serve them in a particular area

By implementing and enforcing reasonable global laws you eliminate a large number of problems. As of today child pornography is in fact legal in some old soviet states. We can have no free harbours for those out to bypass the system.

• Present economic system must be replaced with a real-value system. Meaning; you cannot "make" values (money) out of nothing. All values must be grounded to something concrete.

What about all the jobs that are necessary but are not concrete. Just because you do not 'make something' does not mean you have not provided something of value
-seeall service industry jobs.

This is related to the way banks today handle loans. A bank can take 1 dollar and magically transform it into 10 dollars. This system was created as a transition into real-value economy, only that the last phase did'nt happen. As a result can put one dollar on stake and if you don't pay your loan, it can take 10 dollars back from you, in terms of your house, car and so on. An American pointed out this to a court some years ago, when he was unable to fulfill his end of the bargain. The court ruled against the bank and made it so that he was'nt forced to pay back more than the actual value the bank had offered; one tenth. After this the rules concerning similar issues was changed.

The current system does nothing but build up debt. Where is the money to pay for the rest, 9 dollars, gonna come from? They do not exist. By basing the economy on something concrete you will not have these issues. Your farm-example is great. Farmers are primary, the baker is secondary, the shop is third and so on and with all value tied to something, you cannot create the amount of debt you can today.

• A one world currency must be introduced.

Not a bad idea, but too difficult to implement IMO. Though I would be interested in your proposed implementation strategy.

I need to work on that :) hehe

• All military-grade weapons research must end. Instead the resources currently allocated to this must shift to research within the field of medicine, free energy and space exploration.

People will always feel the need to defend what is theirs...no matter if there are 100 or 1 forms of gov.
...the demand will always be there unless you modify people (not possible or ethical IMO)

Also, many ofour advances are due to weapons research

Free energy is nice in theory...but where is the motivation to provide and maintain something that is free

Why the obsession with space? We have not even fully explored the Earth yet. Also, I think we need to solve our issues here before we take them into space

My point was that too much effort is placed with making weapons and not enough with making things better. The need for individual protection and the right to bear arms is deeply rooted in the US, this in not what I speak of. I'm talking about how to make weapons of mass destruction.

The advances made through military research can be achieved through research on other areas. It just needs to be broken into segments. Fuel (propellant) as an example does not need to be put into a missile for it to be worth researching or made money off of.

• All national dept between countries and the world bank must be erased. We need to start over.

Why would countries forgive the debt that is owed to them? That would only hurt them. That would be advocating what is best for one country at the expense of another.
Furthermore, the situation would only start again. Loans are what fuels growth. So countries (like banks) will always be loaning money to other countries.
...unless you would like to see loans (and economic growth) end

Again related to the current economic system. The money being loaned doesn't actually exist. It's just numbers. If we are to make a stable long term economic system, the debt needs to be erased.

• A "max income" must be established for all jobs. No one person needs to accumulate the ridiculous amount of values that some people are able to do today.

See my farmer example. People would only work till they earned their max and would then 'quit' for the year.
-this would stifle production and kill motivation

Also, why would people do more difficult jobs if there was not an increased incentive over 'easier' jobs

Let me ask you this: what are some of the best payed jobs today? Stock trading is one example. Athlete is another. Are these people actually worth the amount of money they get paid or are they a result of a corrupt materialistic system? If you ask me, the lady who cleans the hospital floors has an equally important job, if not more, then the broker. Todays salaries is effed up, big time. This also needs to be reset. This is the main intent of that particular argument.

• Schools and education system must be changed to meet the variety of people. Todays system more or less force everyone to learn the same stuff in the same way.

I agree. But that would require a huge increase in spending (smaller cIasses, more teachers, bigger buildings, etc)
If you give more to one area, you have to be willing to spend less in another...what are you going to cut?

I'm educated as a teacher myself, but work in private sector. I could not easily stand behind the system as it is today as it produces about the same amount of "losers" as it does winners. Funding for this you say? Remove heavy bureaucracy and reduce military funding.

• Prison must only be used with major offences: Murder, rape, gross violence, gross ignorance (DUI with a result of injury as an example)and such. All other violations must be punished by communal service and further education.

Rehabilitation has proved to be ineffective. So I wonder what you would like to do for that.
I agree that drug offenses (personal consumption w/out injury) should not result in prison time.
But all other things (fraud, theft, harming another) should still result in harsh punishments.

Prison is nothing more then a source of income for a select few, rather than an institution for rehabilitation. This must be seem in the bigger picture and factor in education first and foremost. I believe a proper educational system could do rather nicely in catching those in risk of turning out to be future criminals.

rawsavon

Always a pleasure discussing with you raw. I must go now, gym and what not, but I'll check up on this later.

Your lack of military weapons research will fail your nation when a new invader arrives to take over your imaginary world.

Being that there's no objective definition for "better" that we can all agree on, I think anyone who tries to put forth an idea of how to "improve" the world is probably going in way over their heads.

All hail our new emperor, Oey666. What would you have me do for the good of humanity, my emperor? My life is in your hands and I am yours to command.

Did I do it right?

Are you willing to change your life to help someone you've never met and most like never will meet?

Oey666

I would far prefer world that currently exists despite its plethora of inadequacies, rather than the one described by the TC. Rawsavon's points largely reflect my stance on the issue, and haven't been refuted by the TC. Granted military spending could be reduced, but not eliminated for reasons regarding deterrence towards war. What the TC has proposed would have unintended consequences that would shift humanity into certain extreme economic and quite possibly uncontrollable, violent social turmoil.

• Age-of-consent laws must be abolished.

You forgot that one.

:oops:

So, you want the people to have absolutely zero power.

Get rid of the Republican-Tea Party in the USA. This would be a Perfect U.S.A..

Easports48

This would help how?

[QUOTE="Oey666"]

You clearly know a lot more about this than I. But you still get my point; Instead of developing weapons, we could increase funding and resources in toher areas. 10 years ago the spending on weapons development was 50 times higher compared to development within the field of medicine. Somethings wrong right there...

BiancaDK

Yes, I get your overall point, it was just the need for space exploration that threw me a bit off, since I've never seen a reasonable argument as to why our race should venture into space in the near-future.

Ideologically speaking (given that all ethical and pragmatic problems simpled just worked themselves out in the process), I'm largely with you. It's a neat dream.