Ah to be young and so naive.

Give this guy a break, imagine if all the stupid shit that ran through your head as a teenager was posted online.

I can't believe the attention this thread gets. It seems like many members thought of it as a possibility. Hate to break it to you kid but it's not gonna happen because humans.

@confinedbread said:

I vote a return to tribalism. To all who seek glory, we meet tonight at the rise of the moon and the blooming of the nightblossom. All shall perish under our mighty ax, and superior gods.

Can I still be Macho Man?

I vote a return to tribalism. To all who seek glory, we meet tonight at the rise of the moon and the blooming of the nightblossom. All shall perish under our mighty ax, and superior gods.

I was expecting a rant about the use of the word "states" rather than "countries," and I'm kind of bummed I didn't get one.

Yeah, we should build a great army and kill everyone that disagrees with us. This way, peace would be brought unto earth.

@Pezen: Lol, oh one of those people are you? Well, good luck with that vega crystal ball that lets you see XXXX years into the future. Globalization is largely the result of trade and inter-dependence, not political union. I'm not against globalization (well, maybe against some of the not so well know abuses that is has created), a one-world government on the other hand is a bad idea. I do no, in fact, have a hilariously stereotypical view of Germany, or any other nation, it was a very simple example, you are the naive one for your reductio ad absurdum conclusions. The basic point still stands, how do you account for massive cultural differences when trying to integrate different nations: go to Uganda and try to convince them about the benefits of homosexuality, or go to the USA and try to tell them that sharia law is a good idea.

I said nothing about immigration or integration, and I think you are an example of why we are 'not ready', give the general lack of awareness of history, human nature, and a general lack of critical thinking. Please, do not be offended, I'm not trying to be an ass just for the sake of it, but your arguments sound incredibly silly. For example: what does a 'more moral' world look like? What is morality, why is your idea of it more relevant than another persons? How did you come to this idea of a more moral world, why is it so great? Do we have moral obligation outside of laws? If so, why do many people ignore these obligation, even within a framework of laws? How would you enforce these morals? Would people just accept them? Is that even viable? All food for thought.

I think it's pretty clear that if anything we need more smaller governments. If you have too much distance between the rulers and the ruled, it's really easy to abstract away how things actually affects real people, and it's really easy to feel completely powerless. The city state is basically ideal; any government greater than that is basically a scam. City states let the cities specialise industry based on geography and so on, which is more efficient, and also leads to greater interdependency, which helps to maintain peace. Microgovernments also mean that the damage they can do is limited - they can't raise a particularly large army, they can't screw up the environment very much, and they don't have enough that invading would be the worth the cost of destabilising the area.

@sanchopanza said:

@Pezen: What does lie ahead mr doom-sayer? Please enlighten us.

A really easy one would probably be the fact that our sun will not burn forever.

For one, its undesirable because it would be fucking boring. I wouldn't go to Germany to eat a big mac and speak about the policy decisions of Boris Johnson, I'd do it to see some people wearind lederhosen, drink a tankard of beer and eat some bratwurst. Variety is great.

So you're arguing that the world shouldn't change because you want to go to Germany to see people in lederhosen, drink beer and eat bratwurst? Not only is that a really naive image of what Germany really is today, it's also not taking into account the fact that you can get lederhosen, beer and bratwurst probably anywhere in the world. On top of that, no one said those things would go away due to globalization.

I don't know where you are from, so I do not see where you are getting this 'already happening' bullshit. Every place I have live in has deep cultural divisions. In the UK for example, good luck to you if you try to convince a Scot that they are, or should be, in any way the same as an Englishman, or try telling a Catalan that they do not have an identity distinct from Spain.

Michio Kaku generally gives two big examples; EU and the spreading of English as a global language. Just because there is tribal mentality between neighboring areas, doesn't mean it always will be. In that sense, I don't care that Scots and English have a beef because in centuries to come, that'll grow irrelevant.

Like I said, nothing will happen within our, or the next generation's, lifetime. Because, as you're a shining example of, we're not ready for it yet.

Oh and we have tried to unite and assimilate many culture under a single banner, it did not work. Might want to look at a history book or two. Your whole thing about progress and science is so stupid that I don't even have the energy to respond, just sounds like something an idiotic 15 year old would say at a hippie gathering.

We already have many cultures under a single banner in many places in the world or are you under the illusion that either immigration doesn't exist or that immigration procedures are so efficient at assimilate newcomers to any given country that they give up their own culture? Where I work there are people from, but not limited to; Thailand, Vietnam, China, Iraq, Somalia, Kenya, Serbia, Denmark, Finland etc. and they all have your precious variety in culture, values and traditions.

But again, you're looking at this whole issue from a really limiting standpoint both in regards to time and what's going on around you. I'm looking at this from the perspective of hundred to thousands of years. On a cosmic scale, our brief moment in time is irrelevant. But right now, the world is evolving towards a less violent, more encompassing moral place. Eventually, I am pretty sure we'll all be vegan, or at the very least have the technology that can give us meat without harming animals. Because what drives change is motivation, and comfortable people are never motivated.

@Ravenousrattler said:

Alright lets start the New World Order you guys

Dibs on being Macho Man! Ooooooooooh yeah!

As much as I would like the idea of people getting along with each other, what you're going on about just isn't realistic. You can't make the whole human race conform to one religion, culture, ect..It's not fair to those who don't agree with it. We have borders for this very reason. Besides, if you had the whole human race under one government then nothing would ever get accomplished and progress would never be made because you will ALWAYS have someone who will disagree with the laws, politics, and such forth.

@Yagami: You still have not really answered the question, 'automatically' and 'lets all agree' and 'try' are not good enough responses. Can you fly? No?...oh you haven't tried? How about you try by jumping off a very tall building, once you try you can't fail. (I'm not being a dick by the way, just trying to demonstrate why your point is silly).

I'm glad that you are full of optimism and have faith in man and all that, but most people are only concerned about them and theirs. Most people find it hard anough to get along with their neighbours, and you want them to get along with the whole planet just cos' its nice? Man, I personally know people who would happily shank a guy over £20, good luck trying to get them to play nice.

@Yagami:

I bug you for being 17 because, well, high school students everywhere kind of sound like you do. I used to sound like this. I also fucking hated it when people said "You're just 17" so I get why you wouldn't like me doing that. It was shitty for me to dumb you down like that and that isn't fair so my bad. But...still man, you sound like a high school student. There's nothing inherently bad about that but that does mean that a lot of the older members here won't relate to what you're trying to say. The thing is is that as you get older you let thing like this topic go. To me, as a person who is no longer in high school, this topic just seems like an unnecessary topic to argue about. But it's cool you're thinking about it I guess.

@sanchopanza said:

@Yagami said:

@sanchopanza said:

Geez I worry knowing that people like this actually exist, he tries to deflect every and any good point/argument with 'can't we all just get along maaaannn'.

I would say this stupidity is related to age, but I think most 17 year olds would be offended at that.

I don't see how getting along would be a bad thing. Explain to me how it is a bad thing. I seriously do not see the harm in peace.

..Ok, I will pose a simple question to you: how do you propose we get to this global government utopia? A question others have posed in one way or another and you've dodged for some 7 pages.

I was unaware about those questions, I do not dodge questions at all, not purposely. - I think it will happen automatically. If people want world-peace each and every country must agree with it, and as such, making it a global agreement. Maybe, hopefully, a one-world government is not needed, all of the world's governments agreeing to the common interest of world-peace and equal rights for all may be the only thing we need. - The reason for why world-peace has not worked so far is because not everyone hasn't wanted world-peace, nor equal human rights for all. - In short, we haven't tried it yet. Once we try, we won't fail. The idea of world-peace is to not be hostile, to always never be hostile equals world-peace. USA is one of these countries who doesn't want to try. At least not the Republican side of it. It goes for a lot of countries, so blaming USA alone won't do any good. It totally makes no sense at all how people want to invade and so on. (Economy) - People need to wake the fuck up and realize this. - If we want world-peace, we can have no wish of world-domination alone, but the wish to do so together. - How best to do that? To realize that the Earth matters, to work together, how big or how small our countries are does not matter. - I think that the upcoming comet arriving in 40~ years may wake people up, then it is a matter of Earth, and possibly our very existence vs the comet. Perhaps a major disaster event is needed for us to realize. - It is fun to wiggle around that question, and it is rather interesting.

Alright lets start the New World Order you guys

@Yagami said:

. As for finches evolving in 20 years sounds a bit out there, I cannot take this for real, and the things evolving must be minimal like the beak or so, yet, i'll have to dig around. I don't simply accept things, I must have more evidence. (Oh horrible me, asking for evidence and not take things by faith. -.-) - This does sound like creationist propaganda however so i'll have to dig around, but as I said, it sounds like bullshit but I sustain judgment for now.

I don't see how you think an article on EVOULTION can be taken as creationist propaganda.

Again, it was published in Science. Science is a peer-review journal. That means that all articles that are published are scrutinized by experts in the field of the article. If it is published, you can pretty much take it as being true.

Here is the link to the article in question. You probably need a license to access the full article, but you should be able to read the abstract.

@Insectecutor said:

@babblinmule said:

@Commisar123 said:

I'm a history major, and that shit is fucked up, and that's all I'm going to say about this I withdraw from this stupid debate

I'm also a history major and yeah.... 'fucked up' is the correct response to this. Don't even know where to begin with it, and I know it'll just make me angry, so I'm backing out too.

Man come on. The people most qualified to offer something interesting or worthwhile to this awful thread just abandon it? Fuck.

I think most people with a major in the broad categories of "social studies" just read the OP, laughed, and walked away. I know I did.

#Occupy World

Where is the washroom at?

@AlmostSwedish said:

@Yagami said:

@AlmostSwedish said:

@Yagami: You do know that oxygen is not a finite resource? Where did you get those numbers anyway?

Oxygen is not a finite source? Are you shitting me? Where the HELVETE do you go to school? On this planet, oxygen is limited. It is being outspured with carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is winning out the more as time passes.

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/is_there_enough_oxygen.htm

I admit, finite was not the proper word, but it was what came to mind. What I mean is that oxygen is relpenished via photosynthesis.

Also, I would be more careful with what you read on the internet. Citing numbers from a random website is a quick way to get in trouble.

For the record, I study chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology.

Then I suggest you STUDY more. ;-) We need fine scientists (NOT creationist retards) like yourself to improve the world. :3 - I'll check that link, as much bias that is surrounding FOX NEWS, and as much as I hate the religious agenda they push, and the outright LIES they tell is known world-wide.

-

Okay, so the claim is that a species has evolved into a new one in 20 years. I'd say that's possible, I am not a biologist, I am a schoolboy, so my knowledge about this is limited. Bacteria can evolve extremely fast, each cold you have is a different one as the virus evolves to resist the drugs and beat your immune system. As for finches evolving in 20 years sounds a bit out there, I cannot take this for real, and the things evolving must be minimal like the beak or so, yet, i'll have to dig around. I don't simply accept things, I must have more evidence. (Oh horrible me, asking for evidence and not take things by faith. -.-) - This does sound like creationist propaganda however so i'll have to dig around, but as I said, it sounds like bullshit but I sustain judgment for now.

I think that your belief system arose becuase you live in area with roughly the same culture.(I dont mean to say exactly but close enough to wear someone can grow up in the area and not recognize the diferences). I dont think you understand that everyone agrees with you. Yes, everyone wants to live in a world where everyone gets along and humanity is united under one banner. Some people may disagree with you about the respect for others thing but their solution would be to get rid of beliefs that dont agree with whatever agenda they are pushing. This is the reason why your plan would never work. Everyone wants to be in charge and have very different ideas of how to rule(this thread is a testament to that). The problem is that you assume ultimate power. Yes, in ideal world we would all get along. But the truth is humanity blows. This is a fact of life. Get over it. Accept it. Trying to deny leads to terrible ideas like fascism and Stalinism.

@Yagami said:

@sanchopanza said:

Geez I worry knowing that people like this actually exist, he tries to deflect every and any good point/argument with 'can't we all just get along maaaannn'.

I would say this stupidity is related to age, but I think most 17 year olds would be offended at that.

I don't see how getting along would be a bad thing. Explain to me how it is a bad thing. I seriously do not see the harm in peace.

...your post are one face-palm moment after another. Ok, I will pose a simple question to you: how do you propose we get to this global government utopia? A question others have posed in one way or another and you've dodged for some 7 pages.

The rest of your responses to other people are also incredibly childish and show either your mental capacity or age. They are not all being deliberately hostile (some people are yes) they are posing valid questions and pointing out flaws in your argument and you just respond with some silly or childish comment, or worse some remedial level philosophy.

@Yagami said:

@sanchopanza said:

Geez I worry knowing that people like this actually exist, he tries to deflect every and any good point/argument with 'can't we all just get along maaaannn'.

I would say this stupidity is related to age, but I think most 17 year olds would be offended at that.

I don't see how getting along would be a bad thing. Explain to me how it is a bad thing. I seriously do not see the harm in peace.

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

@Yagami said:

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

The only people who ever complain about borders live in countries whose free societies foster that sort of idealistic thinking, and free thinking societies benefit greatly from borders.

First I want to apologize for cutting your post, I will answer many posts in this one so please bare with me. I don't care about economic benefit, I care about human life. To reject a 19 year old to stay in Sweden and go back to Iraq to an almost certain death is madness. These politics are NOT beneficiary to mankind, they are a fucking joke to mankind.

You either aren't paying attention or can't understand, because I never talked about economic benefit.

I'm assuming you value freedom as part of human life. I tried to explain to you how freedom wouldn't exist without borders. If you think China has things right and we should all just live under a government like China's, please say so.

Oh, okay, I misunderstood it then.

Freedom is a nice concept, but it isn't real. While we are free to "choose" our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions.

I value logic, science and human rights. People do not share this with me in here however, that's been made clear.

@Inks said:

This, Ladies and Gentlemen is the product of the Swedish education system.

No, it is the product of looking at border politics and ranting about how to overcome wars and unfairness to make a peaceful world. The Swedish education system has nothing to do with what I think about it, it is solely my own "fault".

@No0b0rAmA said:

The topics you have been posting are nonsensical bullshit. Do everyone a favor and stop. I can't even put into words why everything you are saying is wrong.

Don't like what I have been thinking about? Don't read. It is that simple. I'd love to hear how everything I say is wrong, however expecting you to actually do that is to push it, right? I totally admire people like you. "AH! EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG! ...That's it..." YA NEED TAH SHOOOOOOW HOW EEET EEEESSS WORRRRRRRRRNNNGGGHHH... :3

@thebatmobile said:

And most of all, how did you get to a point where your theory made any sense to you?

How doesn't "human rights for all, worldwide" make sense to you? How doesn't "a unified Earth where everyone is equal to rights" make sense to you?

How doesn't "a peaceful world" make sense to you? ...Maybe you just like... ooooh I dunno... WAR?! - Maybeeee you just happen to like that not all people have the same rights? Could it be that you actually are a discriminatory person? I don't know, but I somehow fail to see the negative parts of allowing a human to live life as he/she wants as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

@Bertlezat said:

@Yagami: You think the US is tragic huh? I quite like where I live... so screw you. Gotta love having a 17 year old punk from the Kingdom of Sweden make generalizations about a country that is 33x more populated and much more diverse (in terms of religious affiliation, ethnicity, race, economic status... or pretty much any other metric you can come up with). In fact I'd almost be willing to bet we have more people of Scandinavian heritage living here than there are in Scandinavia (there are certainly more being born here than there.)

Have you ever been to the US? And no... watching re-runs of How I Met Your Mother and Seinfeld don't count.

Edit: Was curious so I looked into it --- ~25 million in all of Denmark + Norway + Finland + Sweden; ~12 million Scandanavian Americans (3.9%)

I do think the US is tragic as of now. Looking at morons such as Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul running for PRESIDENT, and actually have PEOPLE, not trashbins, but people, voting FOR them - I can't think of a more fitting word than tragic.

@Shimmy said:

While I think you've got a point about the arbitrary nature of borders and laws and so forth, I'd say that these things are no less arbitrary than just about anything else that humans have created for themselves. Calendars are arbitrary, clocks are arbitrary and so are all the ways that we've figured out to measure and parcel out the world around us. You say that people should respect each other and that's a perfectly valid position to take, but it has no more of a basis in "natural law" than the dictum that people should disrespect each other.

You think the world should exist under a single set of rules; I think that things are fine the way that they are. Neither proposition is without flaws, but I suppose under the circumstances, it's a "pick your poison" kind of question.

I'm a history major too, and I agree humans are fucked up. Ain't nothing gonna fix that.

Sure, but clocks and so on don't cause wars, discrimination and so on. Pathetic people do. We need to un-FUCK ourselves. Now.

-

Comments are always welcomed, no matter how pathetically hostile they may be. Thanks to the MODS and STAFF for keeping this open.

I said it before and I say it again, the hostilities shown in people's posts simply reflects how tiny genitalia they have. - OK, I didn't say that before... Now I did.

I don't mind offensive comments at all personally. I like discussions, no matter how pathetic the opposition's behavior is.

I'll still answer to comments here, but for now i'll take a break and focus on my next attack. - Patriotism. You patriots better get ready, it may or may not be pretty. ^.^

-

Getting rid of borders dose not mean peace. In a society with rules that matter, there will be consequences, and if you could chose your own consequences they would no longer be consequences. Your right there is no totally free society, but i would not want to live in a totally free society because, as long as people are human then they will lie, cheat, and steal. but i would not want to be any thing but human, because the reason i lie, cheat, and steal is because i can feel, and because i dream, and because i love.

@Yagami said:

@AlmostSwedish said:

@Yagami: You do know that oxygen is not a finite resource? Where did you get those numbers anyway?

Oxygen is not a finite source? Are you shitting me? Where the HELVETE do you go to school? On this planet, oxygen is limited. It is being outspured with carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is winning out the more as time passes.

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/is_there_enough_oxygen.htm

I admit, finite was not the proper word, but it was what came to mind. What I mean is that oxygen is relpenished via photosynthesis.

Also, I would be more careful with what you read on the internet. Citing numbers from a random website is a quick way to get in trouble.

For the record, I study chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology.

Humans who settled and created countries were the ones who progressed, the stability of non-nomadic life allowed for the invention of society as we know it today (society having evolved over thousands of years).

Look at the nomadic tribes of the Amazon and the natives of Australia and New Zealand, they did not progress as settled tribes did. Geography dictates where people can live, and squabbles between people define whether they live together or not. These disagreements led to nations, nations manifest themselves today as countries for the most part. Where would anyone be without countries?

@AlmostSwedish said:

@Yagami: You do know that oxygen is not a finite resource? Where did you get those numbers anyway?

Oxygen is not a finite source? Are you shitting me? Where the HELVETE do you go to school? On this planet, oxygen is limited. It is being outspured with carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is winning out the more as time passes.

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/is_there_enough_oxygen.htm

@Yagami said:

FOX NEWS?! Are you serious? -.-" FOX NEWS is the #1 clusterfuck of a "news" corporation on the fucking planet. Sorry, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry. That is the most sad thing i've heard in a loooooooooooooooong while. ...Fox news... how biased you are.

Now you're just showing how biased you are. The article he links is citing Science. You should look it up, it's one of the major publications of science. You know, that thing you claim to like so much.

In general, if the "trolls" bother you, why don't you just ignore them and answer the catual questions and criticism. For example, where did you get the crazy ide that we are running out of oxygen? You can't just move on to the next topic just because you can't take criticism. Either you answer or admit you're wrong.

@Dagbiker said:

@Yagami said:

@Dany said:

@Yagami said:

Lastly, I agree with you, of course. We must dig ourselves out of this shithole. - And fast, in 5 billion years we no longer will have an Earth, we are on our way to a head-on collision with the Andromeda galaxy. Our only hope is for us to become an Intergalactic species. As much sci-fi as that sounds, it also is our very destiny. That, or annihilation/extinction.

We will be dead in 5 billion years. Sorry to break it to you.

Yes, as a matter of fact, 15,000 years is what we have, and that is if things go well. The reason for this is because of the oxygen, the air we breathe, it will no longer be breathable by us. I was sure I mentioned this, but I see I didn't. - For those who wants to know why, here's why.

We cannot live if the oxygen in the atmosphere is under 18%, today's %? ...Well, it is 20.90~% as of the last measurement.

Why can't we live if the oxygen is above 18%? Our lungs capability of taking in "thin" oxygen simply isn't. However, I won't deny that it is possible that we may evolve better lungs that can take in "thinner" oxygen, however it seems unlikely.

Excerpt:

To use all the oxygen would require: 8.4 x 10L/1.7 x 10L/y = 494,118 years or rounded off to about 500,000 years.

There would be no Oxygen left, none even to breath. BUT, this is a long, long time!

How long would it take to decrease the Oxygen from 20.95% of the atmosphere to 19.95% of the atmosphere?

1% x 494,118y/20.95% = 23,585 y or about 24,000 years.

Gas	% of Atmospheric Molecules	Molecular Mass (amu)	% times Molecular Mass
Nitrogen (N)	78.09	28	2186.52
Oxygen (O)	20.95	32	670.4
Argon (Ar)	0.93	40	37.2
Carbon Dioxide (CO)	0.03	44	1.32

24,000years/% x 3% = 72,000 years.

But you have to divide this by about 5 to include all the other fuels, so, back to about 15,000 years.

This is a long time for us, but geologically it is a very short time compared to "modern" humans, having existed about 60,000 years and our immediate hominid ancestor having lived about 4 million years. - So, to say put it lightly, we are in a rush.

You are naive to think that humans are the end all and be all of evolution. also "Life will find a way."

Also given 20 years species can evolve. Also fox news is reporting it so you know that its a true story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203374,00.html

FOX NEWS?! Are you serious? -.-" FOX NEWS is the #1 clusterfuck of a "news" corporation on the fucking planet. Sorry, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry. That is the most sad thing i've heard in a loooooooooooooooong while. ...Fox news... how biased you are.

@sanchopanza said:

Geez I worry knowing that people like this actually exist, he tries to deflect every and any good point/argument with 'can't we all just get along maaaannn'.

I would say this stupidity is related to age, but I think most 17 year olds would be offended at that.

I don't see how getting along would be a bad thing. Explain to me how it is a bad thing. I seriously do not see the harm in peace.

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

@Yagami said:

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

The only people who ever complain about borders live in countries whose free societies foster that sort of idealistic thinking, and free thinking societies benefit greatly from borders.

First I want to apologize for cutting your post, I will answer many posts in this one so please bare with me. I don't care about economic benefit, I care about human life. To reject a 19 year old to stay in Sweden and go back to Iraq to an almost certain death is madness. These politics are NOT beneficiary to mankind, they are a fucking joke to mankind.

You either aren't paying attention or can't understand, because I never talked about economic benefit.

I'm assuming you value freedom as part of human life. I tried to explain to you how freedom wouldn't exist without borders. If you think China has things right and we should all just live under a government like China's, please say so.

Oh, okay, I misunderstood it then.

Freedom is a nice concept, but it isn't real. While we are free to "choose" our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions.

I value logic, science and human rights. People do not share this with me in here however, that's been made clear.

@Inks said:

This, Ladies and Gentlemen is the product of the Swedish education system.

No, it is the product of looking at border politics and ranting about how to overcome wars and unfairness to make a peaceful world. The Swedish education system has nothing to do with what I think about it, it is solely my own "fault".

@No0b0rAmA said:

The topics you have been posting are nonsensical bullshit. Do everyone a favor and stop. I can't even put into words why everything you are saying is wrong.

Don't like what I have been thinking about? Don't read. It is that simple. I'd love to hear how everything I say is wrong, however expecting you to actually do that is to push it, right? I totally admire people like you. "AH! EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG! ...That's it..." YA NEED TAH SHOOOOOOW HOW EEET EEEESSS WORRRRRRRRRNNNGGGHHH... :3

@thebatmobile said:

And most of all, how did you get to a point where your theory made any sense to you?

How doesn't "human rights for all, worldwide" make sense to you? How doesn't "a unified Earth where everyone is equal to rights" make sense to you?

How doesn't "a peaceful world" make sense to you? ...Maybe you just like... ooooh I dunno... WAR?! - Maybeeee you just happen to like that not all people have the same rights? Could it be that you actually are a discriminatory person? I don't know, but I somehow fail to see the negative parts of allowing a human to live life as he/she wants as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

@Bertlezat said:

@Yagami: You think the US is tragic huh? I quite like where I live... so screw you. Gotta love having a 17 year old punk from the Kingdom of Sweden make generalizations about a country that is 33x more populated and much more diverse (in terms of religious affiliation, ethnicity, race, economic status... or pretty much any other metric you can come up with). In fact I'd almost be willing to bet we have more people of Scandinavian heritage living here than there are in Scandinavia (there are certainly more being born here than there.)

Have you ever been to the US? And no... watching re-runs of How I Met Your Mother and Seinfeld don't count.

Edit: Was curious so I looked into it --- ~25 million in all of Denmark + Norway + Finland + Sweden; ~12 million Scandanavian Americans (3.9%)

I do think the US is tragic as of now. Looking at morons such as Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul running for PRESIDENT, and actually have PEOPLE, not trashbins, but people, voting FOR them - I can't think of a more fitting word than tragic.

@Shimmy said:

While I think you've got a point about the arbitrary nature of borders and laws and so forth, I'd say that these things are no less arbitrary than just about anything else that humans have created for themselves. Calendars are arbitrary, clocks are arbitrary and so are all the ways that we've figured out to measure and parcel out the world around us. You say that people should respect each other and that's a perfectly valid position to take, but it has no more of a basis in "natural law" than the dictum that people should disrespect each other.

You think the world should exist under a single set of rules; I think that things are fine the way that they are. Neither proposition is without flaws, but I suppose under the circumstances, it's a "pick your poison" kind of question.

I'm a history major too, and I agree humans are fucked up. Ain't nothing gonna fix that.

Sure, but clocks and so on don't cause wars, discrimination and so on. Pathetic people do. We need to un-FUCK ourselves. Now.

-

Comments are always welcomed, no matter how pathetically hostile they may be. Thanks to the MODS and STAFF for keeping this open.

I said it before and I say it again, the hostilities shown in people's posts simply reflects how tiny genitalia they have. - OK, I didn't say that before... Now I did.

I don't mind offensive comments at all personally. I like discussions, no matter how pathetic the opposition's behavior is.

I'll still answer to comments here, but for now i'll take a break and focus on my next attack. - Patriotism. You patriots better get ready, it may or may not be pretty. ^.^

-

"You don't even realize that there is no world anymore! It's only corporations!"

@Yagami said:

@Dany said:

@Yagami said:

Lastly, I agree with you, of course. We must dig ourselves out of this shithole. - And fast, in 5 billion years we no longer will have an Earth, we are on our way to a head-on collision with the Andromeda galaxy. Our only hope is for us to become an Intergalactic species. As much sci-fi as that sounds, it also is our very destiny. That, or annihilation/extinction.

We will be dead in 5 billion years. Sorry to break it to you.

Yes, as a matter of fact, 15,000 years is what we have, and that is if things go well. The reason for this is because of the oxygen, the air we breathe, it will no longer be breathable by us. I was sure I mentioned this, but I see I didn't. - For those who wants to know why, here's why.

We cannot live if the oxygen in the atmosphere is under 18%, today's %? ...Well, it is 20.90~% as of the last measurement.

Why can't we live if the oxygen is above 18%? Our lungs capability of taking in "thin" oxygen simply isn't. However, I won't deny that it is possible that we may evolve better lungs that can take in "thinner" oxygen, however it seems unlikely.

Excerpt:

To use all the oxygen would require: 8.4 x 10L/1.7 x 10L/y = 494,118 years or rounded off to about 500,000 years.

There would be no Oxygen left, none even to breath. BUT, this is a long, long time!

How long would it take to decrease the Oxygen from 20.95% of the atmosphere to 19.95% of the atmosphere?

1% x 494,118y/20.95% = 23,585 y or about 24,000 years.

Gas	% of Atmospheric Molecules	Molecular Mass (amu)	% times Molecular Mass
Nitrogen (N)	78.09	28	2186.52
Oxygen (O)	20.95	32	670.4
Argon (Ar)	0.93	40	37.2
Carbon Dioxide (CO)	0.03	44	1.32

24,000years/% x 3% = 72,000 years.

But you have to divide this by about 5 to include all the other fuels, so, back to about 15,000 years.

This is a long time for us, but geologically it is a very short time compared to "modern" humans, having existed about 60,000 years and our immediate hominid ancestor having lived about 4 million years. - So, to say put it lightly, we are in a rush.

You are naive to think that humans are the end all and be all of evolution. also "Life will find a way."

Also given 20 years species can evolve. Also fox news is reporting it so you know that its a true story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203374,00.html

Human's are naturally territorial and like to compartmentalize things, based on mutual needs and beliefs. The idea of countries may not be purely logical, but neither is human nature.

Couldn't disagree more with the original post.

Luckily it doesn't matter either way, so long as we got a trillion dollar military on our side - can I get a hooah

Couldn't bother reading the other posts, but regarding the idea of the OP - sure. I've never understood the point of countries or even less the point of nationalism. It's a pretty big thing in Finland, with our defense forces and whatnot - but I don't really care what country I live in. Sure, Finland is way better than some alternatives, thanks to free education and pretty great health care, but really, there's several other countries I'd be willing to live in.

Perhaps after WW3, when Google is the ruling body for the whole planet, we will have a different perspective on things. Though I doubt the idea of countries will ever disappear, no matter how unified the world gets - we'd just be the Finland branch of Google.

@Yagami: You do know that oxygen is not a finite resource? Where did you get those numbers anyway?

@Dany said:

@Yagami said:

Lastly, I agree with you, of course. We must dig ourselves out of this shithole. - And fast, in 5 billion years we no longer will have an Earth, we are on our way to a head-on collision with the Andromeda galaxy. Our only hope is for us to become an Intergalactic species. As much sci-fi as that sounds, it also is our very destiny. That, or annihilation/extinction.

We will be dead in 5 billion years. Sorry to break it to you.

Yes, as a matter of fact, 15,000 years is what we have, and that is if things go well. The reason for this is because of the oxygen, the air we breathe, it will no longer be breathable by us. I was sure I mentioned this, but I see I didn't. - For those who wants to know why, here's why.

We cannot live if the oxygen in the atmosphere is under 18%, today's %? ...Well, it is 20.90~% as of the last measurement.

Why can't we live if the oxygen is above 18%? Our lungs capability of taking in "thin" oxygen simply isn't. However, I won't deny that it is possible that we may evolve better lungs that can take in "thinner" oxygen, however it seems unlikely.

Excerpt:

To use all the oxygen would require: 8.4 x 10L/1.7 x 10L/y = 494,118 years or rounded off to about 500,000 years.

There would be no Oxygen left, none even to breath. BUT, this is a long, long time!

How long would it take to decrease the Oxygen from 20.95% of the atmosphere to 19.95% of the atmosphere?

1% x 494,118y/20.95% = 23,585 y or about 24,000 years.

24,000years/% x 3% = 72,000 years.

But you have to divide this by about 5 to include all the other fuels, so, back to about 15,000 years.

This is a long time for us, but geologically it is a very short time compared to "modern" humans, having existed about 60,000 years and our immediate hominid ancestor having lived about 4 million years. - So, to say put it lightly, we are in a rush.

While I think you've got a point about the arbitrary nature of borders and laws and so forth, I'd say that these things are no less arbitrary than just about anything else that humans have created for themselves. Calendars are arbitrary, clocks are arbitrary and so are all the ways that we've figured out to measure and parcel out the world around us. You say that people should respect each other and that's a perfectly valid position to take, but it has no more of a basis in "natural law" than the dictum that people should disrespect each other.

You think the world should exist under a single set of rules; I think that things are fine the way that they are. Neither proposition is without flaws, but I suppose under the circumstances, it's a "pick your poison" kind of question.

I'm a history major too, and I agree humans are fucked up. Ain't nothing gonna fix that.

Everyone's stupid apart from me, who's named himself (without irony) after a character who plays god.

Geez I worry knowing that people like this actually exist, he tries to deflect every and any good point/argument with 'can't we all just get along maaaannn'.

I would say this stupidity is related to age, but I think most 17 year olds would be offended at that. Also...@Clinkz said:

@AlexW00d said:

What the fuck is this, a Miss World speech?

Might as well be. Another thread disguised as a topic for discussion (biased discussion) but when you get here, all you get are pages and pages of Yagami's rants.

@Yagami: You think the US is tragic huh? I quite like where I live... so screw you. Gotta love having a 17 year old punk from the Kingdom of Sweden make generalizations about a country that is 33x more populated and much more diverse (in terms of religious affiliation, ethnicity, race, economic status... or pretty much any other metric you can come up with). In fact I'd almost be willing to bet we have more people of Scandinavian heritage living here than there are in Scandinavia (there are certainly more being born here than there.)

Have you ever been to the US? And no... watching re-runs of How I Met Your Mother and Seinfeld don't count.

Edit: Was curious so I looked into it --- ~25 million in all of Denmark + Norway + Finland + Sweden; ~12 million Scandanavian Americans (3.9%)

I have now lost all faith in humanity. I shouldn't be too harsh on you, I mean you could suffer from a terrible disorder rendering your thinking capabilities useless, but what the hell are you talking about? And most of all, how did you get to a point where your theory made any sense to you?

@AlexW00d said:

What the fuck is this, a Miss World speech?

Might as well be. Another thread disguised as a topic for discussion (biased discussion) but when you get here, all you get are pages and pages of Yagami's rants.

The topics you have been posting are nonsensical bullshit. Do everyone a favor and stop. I can't even put into words why everything you are saying is wrong.

What the fuck is this, a Miss World speech?

This, Ladies and Gentlemen is the product of the Swedish education system.

@Yagami said:

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

The only people who ever complain about borders live in countries whose free societies foster that sort of idealistic thinking, and free thinking societies benefit greatly from borders.

First I want to apologize for cutting your post, I will answer many posts in this one so please bare with me. I don't care about economic benefit, I care about human life. To reject a 19 year old to stay in Sweden and go back to Iraq to an almost certain death is madness. These politics are NOT beneficiary to mankind, they are a fucking joke to mankind.

You either aren't paying attention or can't understand, because I never talked about economic benefit.

I'm assuming you value freedom as part of human life. I tried to explain to you how freedom wouldn't exist without borders. If you think China has things right and we should all just live under a government like China's, please say so.

@Yagami said:

Lastly, I agree with you, of course. We must dig ourselves out of this shithole. - And fast, in 5 billion years we no longer will have an Earth, we are on our way to a head-on collision with the Andromeda galaxy. Our only hope is for us to become an Intergalactic species. As much sci-fi as that sounds, it also is our very destiny. That, or annihilation/extinction.

We will be dead in 5 billion years. Sorry to break it to you.

@AlexanderSheen said:

The problem is not with countries or borders. It's the basic nature of humans.

Sure, humans did come up with these things, so you are completely right about that. I find it quite reasonable that humans tried to atleast look at what they've caused and adjust themselves after noticing the errors.

@Vodun said:

And I want to eat candy and shit diamonds, the difference is I'm half way to my goal.

I know a way to how you could shit diamonds. <.< Are you willing to go aaaaaall the way? ^.^ - Kidding, kidding.

@coakroach said:

I see where you're coming from, and eventually globalization and the freer movement of capital and labor could make borders more and more a thing of the past.

But until then, well...

I know, I know, i'm naive. I somehow don't see how that's a bad thing though. Wanting progress should be a good thing. :3

@sanchopanza said:

@Skald said:

And the future currency can be Bison Dollars!

Why am even dignifying this thread with a response though, after the OP showed his incredible intelligence by calling the middle-east a 'shitstain' and the US 'tragic'...right...ok

Because you felt like you wanted to? And i'm sorry for calling the middle-east a not-so-good place but that's what it is. And USA is tragic in more than one way.

@Scooper said:

@Yagami said:

If I could decide, the entire world would be under one set of rules, that rule would be to respect each and everyone equally and to let all people have equal rights to everything, no matter what belief or sexuality or gender.

Good luck with that.

You make it sound like mission impossible. It is possible, all it takes is logic and a will to reform ones thinking.

@Xeiphyer said:

@Skald said:

@Xeiphyer said:

You can't get rid of the rules and let everyone figure it out on their own, because I will come to your house and cut your head off if there's no rules, so clearly that isn't an option.

Well, it's good to know the current regime is keeping you from decapitating people arbitrarily.

Incidentally, I also live in Calgary, and I really don't want to be eviscerated.

Well, its a special case. I'd be pretty angry if the OP went and destroyed civilization. Unrelated, what's your address and what time is nobody but you home? I'm doing a... research study paper book. Its important.

I somehow fail to see how equal rights for all = destroying civilization. If that's what you call it, i'd totally do that, even if it so would kill me. :3 (You know what I mean..)

@Jolt92 said:

@JasonR86: In Sweden there are people as old as fifty (based on my own experiences) that believe this shit. Socialist weirdos.

Thinking about the future of the world and how to best manage to keep peace is important, now I may only be 17, but to do nothing about the current situation is not going to help. And my age should have little importance no matter what subject we're talking about. What matters is what i want to say, not what number I carry.

@SinGulaR said:

I always had the feeling the world would be growing together and eventually would abolish nationalism.

Yeah, that's a huge positive. Then the people would care for the entire world and not just parts of it where one lives. Something I personally do not do. I totally like "Sweden", but I tend to like most countries that has a civilized culture such as Norway, Iceland, Germany and so on.

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

The only people who ever complain about borders live in countries whose free societies foster that sort of idealistic thinking, and free thinking societies benefit greatly from borders.

First I want to apologize for cutting your post, I will answer many posts in this one so please bare with me. I don't care about economic benefit, I care about human life. To reject a 19 year old to stay in Sweden and go back to Iraq to an almost certain death is madness. These politics are NOT beneficiary to mankind, they are a fucking joke to mankind.

@Jolt92 said:

@AlmostSwedish said:

@Yagami: You should consider reading Brave New World (by Huxley) or Fahrenheit 451 (by Bradbury).

I can also recommend reading Brave New World.

Alright, i'll give it a shot. Thanks. :D

@Xeiphyer said:

@Yagami:

I know what you're trying to get at, but you're looking at it the wrong way.

Countries are more than just geographical boundaries that denote a specific location, they also have their own customs, histories, and beliefs that are often specific to that region. The differences between countries are innumerable, and removing borders would not change those differences.

I absolutely understand that there's more than a geographical border, and to how culture and language, belief and customs are different. However I fail to see the need of a border for that. And when it really comes down to it, there is no border, simply a cultural change. - I guess the things that heats me up is the politics embedded within the borders. - Who can stay and for how long and so on... If a persons life is at risk, it should be obvious to let the person stay for as long as danger is awake. - However I see it differently. I see it that even if there is no risk, one should still be welcomed to stay in x country for as long as one wants. - I do not consider myself as a Swedish citizen, I consider myself as a citizen of Earth.

If one country says sex before marriage is okay, but the other says its punishable by death, how do you decide which rule everyone follows? You can't get rid of the rules and let everyone figure it out on their own, because I will come to your house and cut your head off if there's no rules, so clearly that isn't an option. Do you decide by having all 7 billion people on Earth vote on every single issue? The logistics are completely insane, but assuming it were possible, the results would be quite interesting.

You are totally right. I know it is wrong to just rip away medieval times from a certain spot, and here, the border politics also steps in. - Let's say I go to Iran. As a citizen of Sweden, and also as an Atheist, I am not a subject to their Shari'ah laws. Now, let's reverse the roles. - A homosexual boy escapes Iran and arrives to Sweden, he is frightened to death to go back, knowing that he will most likely get executed for being who he is. - He gets rejected... - I am sure you understand the problem. - An entire culture may have to adjust because the people adjusts. - Something has started to shummer itself to life - Logic. - Even in the middle-east people now go on blogs and tell others that they straight out reject the Muslim faith. That's a good thing, and what is even better is that people around the world acknowledges this.

Keep in mind that China, India, and the countries in Africa make up over half the total world population, and then think about the general beliefs and values that people living in those locations might have. I think its safe to say that if everyone in the world voted, we would probably lose a lot of the things we take for granted.

You totally got me here. The problem here is that my thinking is sane to the logical part of the world, whereas the majority of the world is illogical and superstitious. Hence, we lose. If Earth were to be unified as one, it must be when superstition is gone. That is, unless.. people of the civilized countries get together and set up an alliance of their own. - However, yes, you are totally right and the idea of a unified, peaceful, and morally understanding world is farfetched to say the least. It just cannot happen, yet.

Once you remove borders and countries, you need to have some unifying law system under which everyone is accountable. Its not acceptable to just remove borders and leave it at that. So lets talk about government.

If you get rid of all the countries, then you get rid of their respective levels of government, because its impossible to rule over a country if it doesn't exist. As touched on earlier, anarchy would be the result of no government, because there would no longer be any laws. Police can't enforce laws because they don't exist, and even if they continued enforcing the laws they currently have, with no borders, whats illegal in one location would be legal in the other, and vice versa. Just think of trying to drive on the roads! We drive on the right side in North America, but if you someone from a place where they drive on the left side comes over, they would be driving on the wrong side. Since there's no laws, they aren't doing anything wrong. I could talk forever about all the insanity that results from this, but you get the point.

Here you make complete sense. - Anarchy would be the result for sure. And as I am a fan of no laws, because I tend to think that it is quite obvious about what you can and can't do, I don't need laws. I wish I could say the same for the rest of the world... BUT I can't.

So we need a government, you removed all countries and borders, so now we only have Earth, which means we need the Earth Government. A single ruling body for the entire planet. Current countries have many different types of governments, so we would need to decide which one to use. Are we giving every person a chance to vote for it? or vote for the structure of the government? Something vaguely democratic would probably be the result, I can't imagine a ton of people would be voting for a dictatorship anyways.

Even if there would be a government, these people would have to accept each human being's rights equally. I'd go for a single currency, and a minimum wager for a job. I'm sadly not good at economy so... yeah, sorry. :(

Where is this government located? Probably in the largest city, which can be measured a couple of different ways, but the answer is somewhere in China. This government is now responsible for managing the needs of every single person on Earth. Think about that for a second. Now think about it again you fucking idiot.

I'd have it located in your livingroom. D: - Okay, i'm thinking... - We'd have it in Space. Probably on the Moon. - A one-World-government wouldn't necessarily have to be big, but away from the planet would be cool. So, the Moon, cause the Moon is cool. Probably divided to take care of continents, not countries, ensuring the welfare of the people should be the top priority along with Science.

Keep in mind that any issues you may have, when the law is passed, it now affects the entire planet. You don't have regions to apply laws to other than by continent or coast, or other vague large area. Think about how your needs might differ from someone living in Africa or Asia, nearly everything about us is different from them. We eat differently, live differently, speak a different language, etc. The world government has to make decisions that affect every single person, so they need to weigh everyone's needs and compromise everything.

In my eyes, Police are government puppets and is unnecessary.
I imagine what you think about that, but think about it. The police's job is to imprison people, and "uphold the law" that's it. Without laws, no cops. - What is necessary for that to happen? A sane world. Will that happen? I can't say. It isn't likely, sadly.
As such, I think the death-penalty should be imposed, however only to cops. If a cop misuses his powers, he has forfeited his one life. I'd also make drugs legal as the drug-war is completely pointless.
Also, I don't know if you know this, but the larger an area the governing body has dominion over, the harder it is for them to relate to the needs of the people and make the right decisions. There's a reason why cities have their own local government, its because they make decisions that apply to the specific city, but might not make any sense in another city, because their situation is different. Its the same with states in the USA, one state has different needs than another, so they let them make those decisions for themselves while answering to the higher level of government that controls the entire Country, you see the same thing with provinces in Canada. The smaller the area a government controls, the better its ability to meet the needs of the people in its area of influence. By removing Countries and borders, you remove the ability for smaller government to exist and have defined areas (by borders!) that they control.

Quite, however the entire planet needs to recognize each human as equal, and hand each human it's rights to life his/her life as he/she wants. If anything, equal human rights for all will be enforced into all of the world, if it so would kill me.

Never mind the billions of other issues with your proposition, which anyone with common sense could talk about for days, but frankly you're crazy.

I know I am a bit out on the line, but oh well, I find it interesting to talk about. And so do you.

Countries exist because they define geographical areas that share similar beliefs and values, united under their own law system. They exist because they are essential. If you want to complain about immigration laws, go ahead, there's a bunch of issues with them, but they make sense. If Japan sank, they would all be taken in as refugees and they would figure something out. The issue with immigration is that taking in too many foreign people can destroy your own cultural identity, its somewhat understandable.

Hmm.. yes. I am against "cultural identities", it separates and has us rejecting people who needs help. You should understand that that is a bad thing.

There are many other reasons too of course. Also, refugees are accepted into many countries, but understand that they cost the country a lot of money, so they need to take in what they can sustain. If you let 50 million starving poor people into Sweden, chances are you probably can't afford to feed and house them all. You guys pay some serious tax already, can you imagine how much it would go up by if you didn't have immigration laws that limit the amount of people that can move into your country? Anyways, there's a godzillion other issues I could talk about forever. The point is that things are the way they are because they make sense and they work. They need to be refined and improved in the future, not removed.

If Sweden HAD to let 50 million in, then so be it. However spreading it out in the world would balance things so that one very small country didn't have to be overflowed with citizens. The good thing about a unified Earth would be that everyone would help out, economy would never be a problem alongside that either. - I don't agree with that things work, if things worked, we'd have world peace, and people wouldn't be executed due to sexuality. - I find you to be incredibly fucking close-minded for saying that things work, and make sense when it is rather the opposite. - I do AGREE with the last part, which goes AGAINST the second-last part.

First, a huge enchore to you for this massive post, I realize it must've taken a while so I thank you deeply for taking your time to write all of this.

To ease reading, I inserted ITALIC-BOLD text into your quote, there are my positions on things. I totally welcome all corrections you did, and I am happy to acknowledge that I was on the side of some things. So, thank you for showing me how wrong I was on certain issues, I've definitely learnt stuff from your post. Great work! ^.^

@MikeGosot said:

@Yagami: That's a pretty cool idea, but it wouldn't work. At least not now. I'm sure someone here already said this but... If there were no countries anymore, and the world were under a unified government... What would happen to economy? A single coin wouldn't be able to survive in such a territory where economy is very unstable. What about culture? We would have to explain GAY RIGHTS to the Middle East. What about the Army? What if it they decided that they have the right to rule this land? It would be North Korea Deluxe. What about laws? Would the death sentence be allowed everywhere? Countries cannot go away, be it for historical background, be it for the rules of today. We need to go towards our Utopia a step at a time. I know the way the world is today is fucked up. Our systems aren't the best boat around, but at least it floats...

For the economy thing, I fail to see how a universal economy would crash. Now I am not an expert in economy at all... sadly, I'll need more study into that before I can answer properly but if each area had the same currency, I don't see how it would crash - then again, not an expert so I probably shouldn't say anything, but I do anyway so perhaps people can correct me and help me learn... I like learning. :p

I think not only gay, but human rights is far easier to explain than people think. - Just place the opposition in the seat of the victim and show how wrong it is.

Nobody should be shamed, nor attacked for their sexuality, nor gender. - Ok, that was a lame example... The problem is the middle-eastern religion and culture. It is their blatant stupidity which keeps them from thinking like civilized people. Ahmedinejad said "In Iran there are no gay people.. -smirks-"

Well, Mr. Ahmedinejad, you pneumatic screwdriver put-in-reverse-up-a-camel's-asshole.. That's because people are scared of being executed.

There sure are gay people there, and those people are scared shitless of being found and executed. I hate to say this but the only thing that may solve it is to simply abandon the middle-east and pretend they are not there. If people want to leave Iran that are gay or females that have been attacked by abusive husbands or simply had enough of being treated like shit, can simply leave and go to a country where they are treated like actual human beings.

As for the Army, something that I hate with a passion and have 0 respect for... They would have to accept people for being who they are just like everybody else.

Death sentence should only be applied to Police and Law enforcers who misuse their power on the people.

Lastly, I agree with you, of course. We must dig ourselves out of this shithole. - And fast, in 5 billion years we no longer will have an Earth, we are on our way to a head-on collision with the Andromeda galaxy. Our only hope is for us to become an Intergalactic species. As much sci-fi as that sounds, it also is our very destiny. That, or annihilation/extinction.

-

I'll keep answering the rest of the posts but I must take a break for food right now.

-

People are stupid, and you are a shining example of that.