One World

[Thekla]

Hey guys, just wanted to share some idea of mine with you.

What do you think, about one completely equal world.

I'm talking about NO boundaries, NO countries, and NO religion.
One world, where everybody is free to go where he/she wants to.
Everybody is equal, your race and your origin wont matter.
No religions or anything like that, just perfect peace, love and acceptance.
One language everybody speaks for sure and one type of money.
No more poverty for certain parts of the world. No more hunger.
Less overpopulation in certain areas etc...

A communist, liberal democracy with a president.

How do you guys feel about this?
Share your thoughts, please!

(post a comment, and i'll reply for sure)

How would you deal with the language/s issue ?

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

How would you deal with the language/s issue ?

1 language everybody should speak. This language HAS to be taught in schools alongside the native language. For example, in my school, this is what I get taught (just the language ofc): 5 hours Latin, 4 hours Dutch, 4 hours French, 3 hours German, 3 hours english.

One language should be taught just as much as the native language.

 

[Thekla]

1 language everybody should speak. This language HAS to be taught in schools alongside the native language. For example, in my school, this is what I get taught (just the language ofc): 5 hours Latin, 4 hours Dutch, 4 hours French, 3 hours German, 3 hours english.

One language should be taught just as much as the native language.

I can imagine the intrigue involved in choosing the common language ..

 

[Sketcher]

I don't want to get rid of certain people etc, I would just like to be rid of that problem. No forcing or making someone do that, just POOF and it happens.

Coulda fooled me when you said this:

In my world, these people wouldn't exist.

I mean, you can't get from point A to point B without taking some sort of action. Humans can't do "POOF and it happens."

And if we'd have all people working together, perhaps there wouldn't be scarcity. If we'd have a great economy etc, we could produce enough resources.

No, that's not possible. Scarcity can be reduced, history has shown that, but not eliminated. There is only so much food, for so many people. There is only so much land. There are only so many workers. There are only so many hours in a day. This is the problem of scarcity, and it cannot be eliminated. It can be reduced though, and what has reduced it the most is capitalism.

 

[Willtor]

I sure do! At school, I take Latin + Modern day languages.
Diverse languages are great, they are fascinating and beatiful indeed.
But one language everybody speaks, would certainly make things alot easier, wouldn't it?

People actually tried this, btw, with the language called "Esperanto".
It was a scientific and therefor very difficult language, and that's one of the reason it didn't work out.

I, by the way, am taking my english exam tomorrow I should be studying now but...
I've had an oral exam of latin at 12:15 this noon, and I already studied from 6-11:30 for that one, so I'm not really feeling like studying even more today.

Good luck on your exam. When do you find out how you did?

I'm familiar with Esperanto. I don't think it failed because it was scientific. I think it failed because nobody spoke it to begin with, so there was no impetus to learn it.

Nevertheless, I see what you mean. It's sort of like Greek after the Macedonian conquest of the Mediterranean, or Latin during the Middle Ages? People can still have their own regional languages and cultures?

I'd say it's great people have their own point of view / ideas on something. But Religion has caused so much harm and did so much bad things, I would prefer a world without any... Besides that, I believe all religions are untrue, so I find it much better seeing people living their lives without any lies / false religions.

Well... saying religion has caused so much harm is like saying government has caused so much harm. On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, it's really more about corrupt people than it is about the principle of the thing. Take any group with enough people and somebody's going to become violent. Someone sees an opportunity for power and it ceases to be about the tenets of the group. People who ostensibly followed Gandhi acted violently on occasions while he was still alive and criticizing violence! People will act violently in the name of "peace" if they are so motivated.

Now, there's certainly something to say about group mentality (or herd mentality, if you prefer), but that won't disappear without religion. Nor is group mentality always used for evil. And religion has also done many great and good things -- not just mine, but many religions. I don't accept the "religion has caused so much harm" as an argument against religion. I _do_ accept it as an argument against causing harm.

The second reason seems better -- all religions are false and so people are chasing after something unreal.

 

[tansy]

You see, you think you would be lost without Him, because you 'know' him. If you would never had even heard of christianity, never gotten in touch with it, would you still feel lost without it?

If we wouldn't know about God, you wouldn't miss him either.

Ah, but I did feel lost before I knew Him, and actually I did miss the things that God is..I'm just glad I found what I was missing.

 

[tansy]

Yes it does...

But let's say you were born and raised in some rainforest. All of the people you know and will ever know are your own tribe members. You're being taught about the one and only God, also known as "Mamamouchi".

Would you still feel lost? Would you think: "Hmm, for some reason I feel lost, I don't believe in Mamamouchi and it's like I'm missing some kind of spiritual dominant being."

The answer is no you wouldn't. The answer is that religion are stories told by parents to their children and other people. Which is why the all of the religions we know are situated that way. No Muslim would ever feel the need to actually believe in the christian God and Jesus. Just as you won't just abandon your faith and become a buddhist. Every religion claims their God to be the real one.
And this is why I don't believe in God.

No, it doesnt quite work that way..ther's a lot more to it than that, but it's too late at night for me to go into all that.

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

Good luck on your exam. When do you find out how you did?

Exam starting in 25 mins from now. and I find out my score the 18th? or something like that. But really gtg now so bye!

EDIT. well we're about 2 and a half hours later now, and I believe it went quite well

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

I can imagine the intrigue involved in choosing the common language ..

How about making one?

 

[Dragons87]

How about making one?

I quote this for your amusement:

European English:
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.
As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English" .


In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where! more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.

 

[drich0150]

Yes it does...

You can't imagine living on without God, just because you've known him.

Evidently there is something being lost in translation. Being lost has absolutely nothing to do with Missing God Or living without Him.

Whether you know of God or not, His laws, principles and righteousness remains the same. Because God's Standards are not contingent on anyone's knowledge or acceptance of them, and because were are all found to be unworthy or unrighteousness without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, we are indeed eternally lost to Him.. Again this has little to nothing to do with how one "feels" one way or another.

It's like believing in Gravity. you can fully know and understand the laws of Gravity or you can be completely be unaware of it, and it still works the same despite your knowledge of it.. Or do you believe that the village you mention is without gravity?

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

I quote this for your amusement:

European English:
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.
As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English" .


In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where! more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.

xD What a coincidence, this text was in my textbook english, which I had to study for my exam today.

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

Ah, but I did feel lost before I knew Him, and actually I did miss the things that God is..I'm just glad I found what I was missing.

Did you miss 'God', or did you miss something to fill the void? If you would have gotten in touch with the great Mamamouchi from the tribesmen instead of the Christian God, I bet you would have taken that God for granted, and would be believing in it just as much as you are believing in your Christian God today.

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

I mean, you can't get from point A to point B without taking some sort of action. Humans can't do "POOF and it happens."

Well yes, ofcourse we can't. But I'm not interested in making this world, I prefer just thinking of the final product

No, that's not possible. Scarcity can be reduced, history has shown that, but not eliminated. There is only so much food, for so many people. There is only so much land. There are only so many workers. There are only so many hours in a day. This is the problem of scarcity, and it cannot be eliminated. It can be reduced though, and what has reduced it the most is capitalism.

Even though there is only so much food, so much land and so many workers, there are only so many people. There isn't an infite amount of people on this planet, and if we had "1 world", we could make so much better use of this planet (f.e. regions where poverty and war is found these days, without these problems we could easily make better use out of these countries: by applying modern methods all over the world etc)

But you might be right, I do not know.

 

[Beekeeper]

What do you think, about [...]
NO boundaries, NO countries, and NO religion.

Sorry, but it won't happen. Nobody wants it. The religious majority will hold on to being religious. People and their governments in every country will continue demand control over the entry and activities of foreigners. Why shouldn't they? It's their country and they want security.

 

[max1120]

Hey guys, just wanted to share some idea of mine with you.

What do you think, about one completely equal world.

I'm talking about NO boundaries, NO countries, and NO religion.
One world, where everybody is free to go where he/she wants to.
Everybody is equal, your race and your origin wont matter.
No religions or anything like that, just perfect peace, love and acceptance.
One language everybody speaks for sure and one type of money.
No more poverty for certain parts of the world. No more hunger.
Less overpopulation in certain areas etc...

A communist, liberal democracy with a president.

How do you guys feel about this?
Share your thoughts, please!

(post a comment, and i'll reply for sure)

I could live with that, however I think we would want to choose a better form of government than "communism". That has been tried and was an utter failure. I would think a liberal representative democracy, prided over by a president or prime minister would be much better.

Complete equality is not a possibility because all are not equal in ability or contribution to the society. Without some disparity between the greater and lesser contributing members of the society we would lose the higher contributors. For example if a good doctor makes as much as a lousy doctor then the incentive to be a good doctor is lost. Prestige and rewards are necessary to motivate people to achieve greater things. However making all equal at least at some level is doable and a laudable goal. The elimination of hunger and severe poverty is something I would greatly support. No child should suffer poverty or hunger and no one should go without the necessities of life.

Racial, ethnic, and gender equality are equally laudable goals. We should do all within our power to make this a reality. To deny someone something based on such petty reasoning is pathetic and wrong. So I support this also.

A single language (although I have no idea how quickly this could be achieved) would also be a wonderful step forward for society. However there are questions to be answered. What language do we choose? How will it be phased in? Over what period will this be phased in? What about people who have difficulty with the new language? How will we translate everything into the new language and who gets to decide on the translation used?

The same thing goes for a single currency. It is a wonderful idea but the economic realities that surround such a move are enormous. Take the Euro for example, they have had a lot of difficulty bringing it to a point of full acceptance in Europe. I think if you consider the economic implications of such a move you can see why doing that on a plant wide basis would be 1000 times more difficult. However once we have switched to a single planet wide government this would be achievable with a lot of work. But not until that point.

On these points we agree

Now for the big question how would you suggest this be brought about?

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

right, so if anybody would still be interested, my exams went great.

have a good one,
Thomas.

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

I could live with that, however I think we would want to choose a better form of government than "communism". That has been tried and was an utter failure. I would think a liberal representative democracy, prided over by a president or prime minister would be much better.

Complete equality is not a possibility because all are not equal in ability or contribution to the society. Without some disparity between the greater and lesser contributing members of the society we would lose the higher contributors. For example if a good doctor makes as much as a lousy doctor then the incentive to be a good doctor is lost. Prestige and rewards are necessary to motivate people to achieve greater things. However making all equal at least at some level is doable and a laudable goal. The elimination of hunger and severe poverty is something I would greatly support. No child should suffer poverty or hunger and no one should go without the necessities of life.

Racial, ethnic, and gender equality are equally laudable goals. We should do all within our power to make this a reality. To deny someone something based on such petty reasoning is pathetic and wrong. So I support this also.

A single language (although I have no idea how quickly this could be achieved) would also be a wonderful step forward for society. However there are questions to be answered. What language do we choose? How will it be phased in? Over what period will this be phased in? What about people who have difficulty with the new language? How will we translate everything into the new language and who gets to decide on the translation used?

The same thing goes for a single currency. It is a wonderful idea but the economic realities that surround such a move are enormous. Take the Euro for example, they have had a lot of difficulty bringing it to a point of full acceptance in Europe. I think if you consider the economic implications of such a move you can see why doing that on a plant wide basis would be 1000 times more difficult. However once we have switched to a single planet wide government this would be achievable with a lot of work. But not until that point.

On these points we agree

Now for the big question how would you suggest this be brought about?

Glad we agree

I'm not sure if you know, but we once tried coming up with a new language, called esperanto. It failed miserably as it was a scientific language. People had hard times learning it as it was very complicated, and ofcourse, no country / people would be willing to prefer that over its cultural heritage.


Now, for my suggestion on how this could be brought about...
As i've mentioned in lots of posts already, I find my idea to be inexecutable. We can't try forcing people because 1: I wouldn't want that. And 2: it wouldn't work. People hang on to their sense of nationalism and pride and their feelings about their own culture being special etc...

F.e: We can't just ask a person whether he wants to stop believing in God. Anybody who really believes in God won't be deconvinced about his existence, right? Atleast, not when someone just tells them to do so.

So: I don't want to bring this about. I'd just like the world to be like that
If we'd ever had a time travelling machine, we should go back in time and teach all people these things, before they'd have a sense of nationalism and religion etc...

But I fear that will never happen

Talk to you later,
Thomas.

 

[98cwitr]

we should all speak Sumerian, first recorded language anyway

 

[Spoonbill]

we should all speak Sumerian, first recorded language anyway

Yeah. We should all live in caves and wear loin-cloths too.

As much as I agree with a unified world, I doubt this will ever happen. One thing that has remained constant since the dawn of man, is stupid people, with stupid isolating beliefs. We are a broken species.