Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Necros wrote:December 21, 2012 we're all supposed to die anyway because the Mayans said so.

That is balls.

And Necros, that when the calendar will end, not the human race.

AHA! Connor, I can point summit out, at the end of the long year in the mayan callendar there is supposed to be a major event, as has been in the previous ones, this is supposed to be one of rebirth or mass devastation.

Oh yea, cyborgs and genetic manipulation FTW! Apparently my mum commited a 'new' cardinal sin, the genetic manipulation one so my mums doomed but heh, who isn't in the zombie infested, tyrant run, machine death, acid rain and blood in the gutters world we will live in when I get into power. *cough* I mean overlord Kronus the immortal all powerful emperor of the world *cough*

The human race probaly going down the plug hole, god damn global warming.

Before i die i want to see three things happen to the human race:

1.Britian goes communist, probaly not gonna happen but i can hope.
2.Religion is abolished (Dont take this personaly any Religious people, i just think Humanities greatest lie should be destroyed)
3.Mcdonalds become's a classy resturant.

For those who are actually worried about the fake Mayan Doomsday, check out this set of articles.

Xav wrote:
3.Mcdonalds become's a classy resturant.

Hey! now that's just nasty!
(P.S. I'm joking, I meant about the religeon thing)

Believe me, religeon has done a lot more good (and screwed up a lot more) than athesim ever will or could. But let's not make this a RELIGEON thread. Beware, there are darker things than orcs in the deep places of the world. *cue Frazzled*

Things i want to happen to the human race.
1: Democracy is abolished and the whole world is united under one Glorious empire.
2: Catholicism will be the only true religion of this empire.
3: i destroy austraila.

The human race is doomed. Eventually our species will go extinct, or evolve into something which can no longer be considered human.

Thankfully the inevitability of future events has no bearing on the present.

garret wrote:Things i want to happen to the human race.
3: i destroy austraila.

HEY!

garret wrote:Things i want to happen to the human race.
1: Democracy is abolished and the whole world is united under one Glorious empire.
2: Catholicism will be the only true religion of this empire.
3: i destroy austraila.

So basicly you want us to go back to UK in the dark ages?
Wow arnt you smart...

Doomed? I don't see how.

Life expectancy and levels of education and literacy are higher now than at any previous point in history.

WW3, possible I guess. One the whole though War has become less prevalent than before. There has not been a clash between major superpowers for almost 65 years. Since the end of the cold war there has never been any real possibility of 2 superpowers going to war.

Cooperation between people and levels of tolerance are at an all time high. Racism and bigotry in major countries, once common and accepted, have become fringe activities almost universally commended.

Even now, in the middle of a apparent major recession, levels of unemployment are yet reach levels that where commonplace only as long ago as the 80's and nowhere near as bad things where during the 30's.

People wear rose tinted glasses and talk up the comparative few issues we still have. In reality Humanity has never been in better shape.

While thats true lucius we will go extinct eventually, newtons second law.

...force = mass x acceleration?

And now this is one of the moments when you regret posting before checking what your saying, apprently i was talking about a different second law.

Newtons second law???? Really? Naw, I think Darwin will be to blame.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I have heard of lot of pesimistic opinions as to the overall nature of mankind. While I understand that wars go on, and that horrid stuff happens, do you think that humanity is as bad as it has ever been? Or are things getting better?

I'm of the opinion that humanity has never had a more promising point in history.
-We have the UN.
-Human Rights are widely acknowledged (if not universally upheld)
-CHARITIES exist.
-People are concerned about the environment, and action IS being taken.
-Democracy is prevalent (if not perfect)
Over all, a lot better than 300, 200, or even 100 years ago...mostly.

Please, post any thoughts or arguments as to your opinion of mankinds state.

While I agree that the World as a whole is slowly getting better in some areas, it is definitely getting worse in others.

-The UN is powerless and a resource sucker, especially from richer nations.
-Human rights are given lip service outside the first world, but that is just as bad as not acknowledging them. Poorer countries, especially Middle Eastern and African nations, continue to cling to sexist, racist and backwards that result in repeated violations of our God given human rights.
-Yes Charities exist, and yes they are contributing more then ever, but one has to question their effectiveness at attacking the root of the various problems, and not just prolonging them with short term solutions. IE African nations beginning to reject blanket charities because it is not helping to feed their people in a sustainable way.
-The environment is being protected in many ways but developing countries, especially in South America and in southern Asia refuse to have any environmental standards and continue to chop down the rain forests.
-Democracy is not the best form of government for every country. Montesquieu very clearly outlined that different governments function best in different societies, America and the West need to stop forcing democracy down everybody's throats, because it has many, many problems.

I also have to ask how your assessment on how the world is better then 300, 200 or 100 years ago is found. With the collapse of imperialism we have seen tribal warfare and genocides in Africa skyrocket, we have seen the rise of radical Islam and we see nations, like Russia, that continue to adopt the über-nationalism that could destroy this planet. Medicine and technology have advanced but we still must ask ourselves, what price is our progress?

1)UN is one of the most monumenal things to have happended to the world. The biggest (and quite symbolic act) was the Declaration of Human Rights. Never before had such a thing been accepted around the world. (Uk and USA Bill of Rights were crappy)

2) They are getting better, but I will be the first to agree and admit there is a long way to go.

3) Very broad look at charities there, I know quite a few (Watoto and Water...something) that think very long term.

4) What can you expect? Western countries had thier go at the enviroment, why should developing countries be denied thier chance to develop? Again, a bit much generalisation there. There are many countries ALL for the enviroment (My personal fav is NZ, blood kiwis).

5) meh, I don`t see what other options there are. Of course it doesn`t have to be a bloody republic, but it`s easy enough to get (and set up0 a constitutuional monarchy.

100 years ago, racism was commonly accepted. Huge gaps between rich and poor. (Can`t list everything)
200 years ago, more racism. More slavery, more `money talking`.
300 years ago, even MORE racism, slavery, `money talking` and such.
Don`t even get me started on the middle ages.

Thank you Jeb_Stuart, that was a well constructed post. Look forward to your reply!

Well, we are "the most intelligent" race on the planet and yet a few million of us still result to tabletop wargamming.

So yea, I'd say mankind's fethed.

Cheers,

Jack.

Mankind is only doomed when the mice are finished with us...

Believe me, religeon has done a lot more good (and screwed up a lot more) than athesim ever will or could. But let's not make this a RELIGEON thread. Beware, there are darker things than orcs in the deep places of the world. *cue Frazzled*

If you've ever been to the DMV, you know this to be true...

"You are the harbinger of death Kara Thrace."
-Some old guy in a tub full of goo.

Emperors Faithful wrote:1)UN is one of the most monumenal things to have happended to the world. The biggest (and quite symbolic act) was the Declaration of Human Rights. Never before had such a thing been accepted around the world. (Uk and USA Bill of Rights were crappy)

2) They are getting better, but I will be the first to agree and admit there is a long way to go.

3) Very broad look at charities there, I know quite a few (Watoto and Water...something) that think very long term.

4) What can you expect? Western countries had thier go at the enviroment, why should developing countries be denied thier chance to develop? Again, a bit much generalisation there. There are many countries ALL for the enviroment (My personal fav is NZ, blood kiwis).

5) meh, I don`t see what other options there are. Of course it doesn`t have to be a bloody republic, but it`s easy enough to get (and set up0 a constitutuional monarchy.

100 years ago, racism was commonly accepted. Huge gaps between rich and poor. (Can`t list everything)
200 years ago, more racism. More slavery, more `money talking`.
300 years ago, even MORE racism, slavery, `money talking` and such.
Don`t even get me started on the middle ages.

Thank you Jeb_Stuart, that was a well constructed post. Look forward to your reply!

-While the UN, and even more so its predecessor the League of Nations, was a groundbreaking opportunity for all of humanity, I feel that the modern world has squandered it. The UN was never intended to replace sovereignty or to create a one world government, rather it was designed as a forum for nations to settle their disputes through talks rather than warfare. I will also agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They were a symbolic victory at best, but since the vast majority of the world's population does not adhere or support them then it must be considered a moot point. My mail problem with the UN is that it has devolved into squabbling factions and is ruled not by promoting the common good but by political correctness. Everything from its everyday administration to peace keeping missions is wrought with problems. They are afraid of Westerners running the show, and will go so far as to put less qualified, less suitable people of a non-Western origin, Koffi Annan for one, just to have a poster child that highlights their "progress." This is not progress, true progress would be to hire someone who is the most qualified, and as according to the UDHR is completely merit based. Their peace keeping missions are a joke quite frankly. I hate using Hollywood as an example, but look at Hotel Rwanda, which was based on real life accounts. UN Peacekeepers were unable to use deadly force or practically any force because they themselves were not endangered. Or for example the Russian "Peacekeepers" in the South Ossetian War, it was a fraud plain and simple. The Russians were using their blue helmets to unleash a deadly war on the unsuspecting Georgian civilians. These are very big examples of problems in the UN that cannot be overlooked, and are fundamental road blocks in the path of it becoming a truly effective institution.
-Human Rights, while universally declared in theory, are not even universally recognized in reality. Many nations in the Global South flagrantly ignore the most basic of human rights, most notably those of religion or expression. Their government are either unwilling to recognize them or are actively opposed to them, and the people of these nations are very much of the same mindset. Even in countries such as Egypt and India, where the government "guarantees" these basic rights fundamentalist Muslims continually engage in terror campaigns against Christians, Jews and Hindus. This isn't even mentioning the various forms of sexism and discrimination and racism that take place. The world has a much longer way to go then anyone can possibly imagine, and the intolerance caused by these peoples will only drive further intolerance and racism around the world.
-Truly, some charities are looking for long term solutions. The main problem is the vast majority of charities and aid giving governments only provide short term solutions. Providing someone with free food will only continue their lowly existence and drive up population, whereas teaching someone to grow their own food will help them to improve their existence and provide for stable population growth.
-As far as the environment is concerned, these developing countries must be stopped in destroying their own environments. Yes the West has already had their go at it, but that doesn't mean these countries should too. We have learned about the terrible cost of our industrialization and should not allow others to repeat those mistakes. This will only lead to greater suffering and woe. Humanity should learn from its mistakes and not repeat them.
-A true constitutional monarchy is in my mind the most wonderful form of government. Where there is equal power shared by the Sovereign, Lords and Commons. This will help to balance the will of the people with the experience and expertise of the Lords and the Sovereign. That is one of my few problems with the UDHR in that it makes the will of the people the basis of government. The people are fickle and not trustworthy. Better to have a more solid basis of government, but even still this should not apply to every country. This would not work in the US, but it would be more suited to Commonwealth and European countries.

I appreciate the optimism, but I am not yet willing to concede that the Earth is in a truly better place. I look forward to your response, and if you want to respond to a few more things in my first post I would be happy to see your ideas.

JEB_Stuart wrote:A true constitutional monarchy is in my mind the most wonderful form of government. Where there is equal power shared by the Sovereign, Lords and Commons. This will help to balance the will of the people with the experience and expertise of the Lords and the Sovereign. That is one of my few problems with the UDHR in that it makes the will of the people the basis of government. The people are fickle and not trustworthy. Better to have a more solid basis of government, but even still this should not apply to every country. This would not work in the US, but it would be more suited to Commonwealth and European countries.

-I beg to differ. That is the road to tyranny. if you like that freaking move to venezuela and see how much your benevent sovereign cares for you.

-The Earth is doing fine. We are blindingly irrelevant to the Earth. If we blew up everything tomorrow the Earth would continue. It would just be another opportunity for rebirth for life, a quick shakeup of the established order, nothing to get concerned about.

Frazzled wrote:
-I beg to differ. That is the road to tyranny. if you like that freaking move to venezuela and see how much your benevent sovereign cares for you.

-The Earth is doing fine. We are blindingly irrelevant to the Earth. If we blew up everything tomorrow the Earth would continue. It would just be another opportunity for rebirth for life, a quick shakeup of the established order, nothing to get concerned about.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin. This comment is way overgeneralized and incredibly ignorant. Tyranny is not merely held in the hands of one person, there is such thing as the tyranny of the majority. Venezuela is neither a republic nor a constitutional monarchy. It is in fact a despotic state, which has no such thing as a benevolent sovereign. With the current media in place the abuses of the past are no longer possible. Rulers, in any free country, which the last I checked the UK was a free country and a constitutional monarchy, still cling to public opinion. This includes the House of Lords and the Sovereign. You provide the classic American knee-jerk reaction to the thought of a monarch, but that doesn't mean it is right. And please, just because I believe it is a good form of government, doesn't mean that I support it for our country. And no, I am not leaving, I love my country more then you could know.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin. This comment is way overgeneralized and incredibly ignorant. Tyranny is not merely held in the hands of one person, there is such thing as the tyranny of the majority. Venezuela is neither a republic nor a constitutional monarchy. It is in fact a despotic state, which has no such thing as a benevolent sovereign. With the current media in place the abuses of the past are no longer possible. Rulers, in any free country, which the last I checked the UK was a free country and a constitutional monarchy, still cling to public opinion.

How do you think Venzuela became like it was today? Good people let dictatorship happen became they beleived some fool's lies, that a "sovereign" could govern them better than they could.

This includes the House of Lords and the Sovereign. You provide the classic American knee-jerk reaction to the thought of a monarch, but that doesn't mean it is right. And please, just because I believe it is a good form of government, doesn't mean that I support it for our country. And no, I am not leaving, I love my country more then you could know.

Funny two wars to free ourselves from such tends to ingrain that in a country. Shall we list they other countries that fought such dictatorship as well?
And lets get real, Britain is democracy. The "sovereign" is a figurehead. The moment the Queen got uppity she'd find herself in a medical facility or woken up dead. Lets give the Brits credit, they know how to maintain Prliament against the Royalists...
(wait now I have to add Britain itself-forgot that whole Roundheads vs. Loyalists thing you had)

Why would we be doomed, evolution is continuing for us, we are advancing, no wars are going on(major wars, mind you)

My apologies I shouldn't have generalized, it can't happen in Western countries. You again though commit a political fallacy by equating dictatorship with monarchy. I am not an advocate of absolute monarchy which is what you seem to think I support. Constitutional monarchy is a blend of republican government with a monarch. It could prove to be the best form of government as it leaves at least one branch at the whims of the people which are not the most reliable or stable basis. Balance is essential to society and to government, which this form provides. But again, it isn't for every nation, nor should it be. Every nation should be free to determine its own government.

Frazzled wrote:
And lets get real, Britain is democracy. The "sovereign" is a figurehead. The moment the Queen got uppity she'd find herself in a medical facility or woken up dead.

And yet they began as a Constitutional Monarchy. Hardly the road to tyranny.

The truth is that any form of government can quickly devolve into a tyrannical state. There is no fixed progression of events which leads in one direction. Though it does seem that a larger nation requires more authoritarian hand to direct its power most efficiently. However, whether efficiency of action should be the ultimate goal of the state is another matter.

@JEB_Stuart:

I fully understand your concerns about the UN, but you must also understand their hesitation to get violently involved. You yourself pointed out where this leads to catastrophe (Georgia). But there are cases where it has worked to some effect. South Africa, for example. All they did there was refuse to trade and allow to compete in sports. It took a while, but it helped.

I strongly disagree with you however, when it comes to protecting the enviroment. Unless Western countries are going to hand over all THIER industry, it is pure hypocrisy to tell the developing countries not to take advantage of thier resources.

Also, I'm not saying that everyone should go for a constitutional monarchy, but each to thier own. I honestly don't know which form of government works best.

I agree with a lot of what you said though.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
And lets get real, Britain is democracy. The "sovereign" is a figurehead. The moment the Queen got uppity she'd find herself in a medical facility or woken up dead.

And yet they began as a Constitutional Monarchy. Hardly the road to tyranny.

The truth is that any form of government can quickly devolve into a tyrannical state. There is no fixed progression of events which leads in one direction. Though it does seem that a larger nation requires more authoritarian hand to direct its power most efficiently. However, whether efficiency of action should be the ultimate goal of the state is another matter.

Incorrect. They began as a feudal dictatorship, or military junta. It was only when the king was was forced at sword point to sign the Magna Carta did things start down the road to democracy. Lets not sugarcoat the mass killings English royalty has done in the past. Ask the Scots, Irish, and Welsh. As MDG, but bring a translator "ker kaplahbragh! Haggis!"

Unfortunately, all of the measures taken to 'Make the world a better place' seem to be a case of too little, too late. Some of us have finally realized our mistakes, but only after we have entered a continual, self-supporting downward spiral.

- The UN means next to nothing when the members of it are generally nations of sound state of mind. It is very apparent that not everyone is willing to talk out their problems. The UN as a whole is hesitant to use force to resolve all but the most minor conflicts, for the sake of not sparking global conflict. It is also not an end-all military pact between nations, which it very well should be. Let's say a non-partisan nation with a sociopathic wildcard for a despot decides to fire a nuclear missile on a UN-supported nation. The majority of the UN would more than likely sidestep the entire conflict for fear of retaliation. If that nation did not respond with equal or greater force, the citizens of said nation would be prone to riot, topple that nation's government, and get the job done themselves, if they weren't small enough to be wiped out to begin with. Just an example of how the UN is completely useless when it comes down to the wire.

- Human rights have been, and always will be, simply an idea. Ideas can be molded or ignored completely. Go ask the next homeless person you run into exactly how many 'Human Rights' they receive on a daily basis. Rights given to you by government can be taken away from you in an instant as that government sees fit, even in a 'highly civilized' nation with a 'sense of morality'. The way that the United States economy is so dependant on your credit, once you dig yourself into a hole (for any number of reasons), there is no way to climb back out of it. Here, having a bad credit score makes it literally impossible to buy anything of value. You must own a home and a phone to be hired anywhere, even a temp labor company who pays by the day. So let's say you lose your job. In the state of the current economy, it is nearly impossible to find another. Your house payments become late and eventually non-existant (decimating your credit score), so eventually your house is foreclosed. You lose your address, thus making your ability to find a job non-existant. Your ability to receive government aid (Food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) also disappears. If you have a car, you'll probably live in it for as long as you can manage, but if a police officer has any reason to suspect that you're doing so, you can be arrested and jailed for vagrancy. You'll probably eventually sell the car for food anyway. So, you attempt to move to a homeless shelter, only to find that the vast majority of shelters are either completely full, or only temporary residences (where you have to wait in line for a room once you leave), which you cannot use on a job application. And you generally live by standing in a line at a soup kitchen. I guess the idea of that was, do you have the right to anything at all, even the most basic necessities? Absolutely not. I can only imagine what it's like to be homeless in a country that's not so well off.

- While charities may exist, profiteering is also more rampant than ever. Let's take the medical industry, for example. While I can understand that it costs money, a hospital visit often times costs more than a year's salary to the uninsured. A routine medical checkup, or even a doctor's visit where you are given something that you can buy at a drug store for under twenty dollars can cost upwards of a thousand dollars uninsured. Considering that more than 50 million americans alone are without health insurance, this is a serious problem. Living paycheck to paycheck, you simply cannot afford health insurance. Also, couple that with the fact that every single insurance company hires employees with the specific job to find every possible way to screw you out of your insurance money that they can. This may be one of the worst examples of profiteering I can think of (Especially because it drives life expectancy down for the lower class within a capitalist society without free healthcare exponentially), but it's only one of thousands.

- The only reason action is being taken to care for the environment is that now we can finally see how badly we've screwed it up. Immediate effects are now painfully apparent, from multiple cases of total extinction, to global warming, to resource depletion. I wouldn't say that just because we are willing to do something about it now constitutes that we are in a better shape than we were before. No, we are in a worse shape than we have ever been, environmentally speaking. Simply put, we are finally afraid of what we've done.

- Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Learn that adage well. No matter what the type of government, it is prone to corruption. In the US, the people have so little influence over their own government that it may as well be called a Constitutional Monarchy. The popular vote is completely overridden by the electoral college. We ultimately have no say over what laws are passed upon us. Even if we can vote for state propositions (Oh, don't forget that the government reserves the ability to take away your 'right' to vote, for any number of reasons), federal law automatically overrides any law that conflicts. This basically destroys the entire point of a democracy. I would honestly rather live under communist rule, if there were such thing as a truly impartial, selfless human being. Unfortunately, Communism has proven itself to be the most susceptable form of government to become totalitarian. At least it's fair. The world does not need majority (As it is painfully obvious that even amongst the majority, opinions differ greatly). It does not need opportunism. It needs impartial equality. At least, if it wants to survive.

Needless to say, I very much wish we were in the state we were 100, 200, or even 300 years ago. Yes, mankind is eventually doomed. We have weaved the fabric of inevitability, and that cannot be undone.

-As mentioned before, we cannot evolve. There is no survival of the fittest among humans, as we all have the ability to breed.

-We have created the most powerful weapon that we will ever know. We might be able to increase the area of effect, but in terms of sheer power, we can go no further. It is only a matter of time before every nation has access to this power, and only a matter of time before someone who cares as little about himself as others uses it. It will inevitably set off a chain reaction of destruction.

- Our population grows exponentially. The more people there are, the more people will breed. We will eventually starve ourselves out if we do not destroy ourselves first.

- If none of this manages to wipe us out, the haphazard way we treat the environment will. Global warming, deforestation and pollution will eventually make the earth completely inhospitable to life in it's current form. The earth will adapt, but we won't.

Luckily, I probably won't be around to see any of it.

just a quick FYI at Frazzled and Dogma: Canada is a constitutional monarchy, though I think the above definition is incorrect; A constitutional monarchy has a (practically) powerless monarch (in our case, Queen Elizabeth II). She is only there to sign laws into action, or in our case, the governor general does that. There is also a difference in how people are elected in our provinces, which is modeled after the british system; rather than people getting in based on who wins the state, as in the US, people get in based on if they win the riding they are in. the currently used system is "first past the post."
We still have two houses of government; the house of parliament and the senate. The people elected in those ridings mentioned form the parliament. These people pass the laws into the upper house (senate). Senators are appointed by the prime minister. The prime minister is the leader of his respective party that has the largest number of seats in the house of parliament.
The senate can only issue a suspensive veto, or push the laws that have been passed back down into the house of parliament. (the latter does not happen too often to my knowledge, but someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
How this is the first step towards tyrrany is beyond me, as Canada has had one of the most stable governmental systems in the world for the past hundred years.
If I've misunderstood something here, please inform me. I've only been studying politics in this country for what, 6 years?