Should we destroy earth and kill ourselves?

[Rodion Romanovich]

So, what do you vote for?

Here's my opinion: I think we should go for either of them, then stick to that line completely. Doing either of them halfway is just a sign of weakness and cowardice. There was this Japanese dooms day sect that detonated a few bombs in a subway in Tokyo. A parody of what they stand for, I say. Either we should try to save the planet, or we should load all nukes we have and prepare to detonate them all at the same time. A strong man knows what he wants and doesn't hesitate between the options. So let's see what people think, and follow it through, instead of lying halfway in between. A nuclear war will take too long, so for all you nuke lovers out there, let's do it faster if we decide to go that way! Yehaa!!!

[rory_20_uk]

People are generally to lazy and (dare I say it - yeah...) stupid to engage their brain towards any outcome.

People desire tomorrow to be like today. Long term planning is something that others worry about - hence taxes...

~:smoking:

[Sjakihata]

People are generally to lazy and (dare I say it - yeah...) stupid to engage their brain towards any outcome.

People desire tomorrow to be like today. Long term planning is something that others worry about - hence taxes...


What an ignorant and arrogant position to take...

[Byzantine Prince]

Ok, but start with yourself.




































~;)

[Rodion Romanovich]

I wonder who voted yes... :rolleyes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

According to all of my "I believe in the spectre of global warming" friends at the ORG, we already have. The poll is therefore moot. GAH!

[Csargo]

People are generally to lazy and (dare I say it - yeah...) stupid to engage their brain towards any outcome.

People desire tomorrow to be like today. Long term planning is something that others worry about - hence taxes...

~:smoking:

But, I dont want tomorrow too be like today. Its not fair I tell you its not fair.:wall:

[Ronin]

i have plans for next weekend....so not for me right now...

but feel free to go ahead with your part of the plan....I´ll catch up...I promise.:laugh4:

[Red Peasant]

People are generally to lazy and (dare I say it - yeah...) stupid to engage their brain towards any outcome.

People desire tomorrow to be like today. Long term planning is something that others worry about - hence taxes...

~:smoking:

:no:

Speak for yourself mate, just because your life's lousy doesn't mean that everyone else's is as well. To some misanthropes the general run of people may appear to be lazy and stupid but most of us think our lives are worth living.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

If we keep doing what we've been doing the past ten years then we should kill all humans. It wouldn't really be fare to destroy earth, I mean, what about all the little bunnies? They didn't do anything wrong. (Even if they do we have holy handgrenades...) Anyway, we cause all the problems, so we should destroy ourselves and let animals do whatever.

[KafirChobee]

People are generally lazy.....
People desire tomorrow to be like today. Long term planning is something that others worry about - hence taxes...


Actually that is a good point. It doesn't mean a complete replay of a day, but that tomorrows promise remain the same, or that progress stand still without any social initiatives. While at the same time they not be bothered with having to give something up to change or save the planet; or be bothered to help in changing any of the negative aspects beset upon the world today. (That's what our "taxes" are for - for others to think for us).

In respect to this:
It has already been leaked that the Bush administration is considering "tactical nukes" to resolve the Iran problem (is why a CIA agent is in so much pucky), and therefore, is probably considering the same for N. Korea. We don't have to kill ourselves - that maybe done for us very shortly by King George and Company.

[Watchman]

Species suicide and scheduled demolition of astronomical objects ("Buy one, get one for free! One set per customer only!") ? Meh, too much trouble. Me lazy.

[Reverend Joe]

You lazy asses. Quit voting for the easy way out, get off your asses and do something to help. Destroying humanity (and possibly the world with it) is a copout.

And Rory... you are a wuss. You yourself are afraid to do something to help humanity, to make any kind of change, even if it means smacking them upside the head somehow (physically, if necessary.) Stop sitting around and writing off everybody as ignorami and wake up -- and help them to wake up too, if you think they are in such a fog.

[rory_20_uk]

Very strident, very moving...

But why wake people up? If you saw a pack of hyenas sleeping, would you wade in with a megaphone? The proletariat slumber. Far better that than they wake up.

There is only scope for a very small number of people to direct projects. Everyone else is required to work on them.

As is frequently said, people who are religious are generally the most contented people. Is it not better that people believe regardless if it is really the case than are enlightened and are miserable?

People live in a fantasy where they matter, where they are important. They believe in fairy tales where Justice is real and not a man made construct.

Better believe a lie than see the truth is nihilism. But you get out there! Get active! Wake those people up for whatever reason you think matters! Keep going - and above all else never stop to think why it is you are doing it.

~:smoking:

[Upxl]

If we keep doing what we've been doing the past ten years then we should kill all humans. It wouldn't really be fare to destroy earth, I mean, what about all the little bunnies? They didn't do anything wrong. (Even if they do we have holy handgrenades...) Anyway, we cause all the problems, so we should destroy ourselves and let animals do whatever.


I don’t believe in bunnies.
I do believe in nukes.
Nukes are so powerful and have that je ne sais quoi going on.

[Watchman]

We call it "plus dicksize" around here...

[Reverend Joe]

Very strident, very moving...

But why wake people up? If you saw a pack of hyenas sleeping, would you wade in with a megaphone? The proletariat slumber. Far better that than they wake up.

There is only scope for a very small number of people to direct projects. Everyone else is required to work on them.

As is frequently said, people who are religious are generally the most contented people. Is it not better that people believe regardless if it is really the case than are enlightened and are miserable?

People live in a fantasy where they matter, where they are important. They believe in fairy tales where Justice is real and not a man made construct.

Better believe a lie than see the truth is nihilism. But you get out there! Get active! Wake those people up for whatever reason you think matters! Keep going - and above all else never stop to think why it is you are doing it.
I'll say it again... you are a wuss. Stop being afraid of the sleeping hyenas. If they keep on sleeping, the pigs will continue to rule -- noone will be awake to tear them to pieces, to spill their blood and guts all over the ground, relising in their little piggy screams. And I know goddamn well why I am trying to wake people up: better miserable, enraged and enightened than content and ignorant, because if the people are enlightened noone can truly rule over them; they make their own decisions. Not as a mob, either, but as a sum total decision, and the sum total of millions of individual decisions is always the best decision.

You would do well to read "Zorba the Greek." Or see the movie if you are too lazy to read a book. It might make you think twice about nihilism.

[Watchman]

And you, sir, are an idealist. Not that it's a bad thing as such, but I'm less than convinced by some aspects of what you've been espousing...

Such as for example the practical difficulty of finding out what that "sum of total decision" is in the first place. Did it incidentally ever occur to you that this sum might quite well be that they want to be content and ignorant, for that matter ? After all, that's what the current "sum of millions of individual decisions" seems to be, and isn't it supposed to be "always the best decision"...?

[rory_20_uk]

Oh dear oh dear... ever seen a mob making decisions? The Russians tried that in their civil war. After a few slaughters they replaced the generals.

What evidence do you have that the masses make the best decisions? Any at all? The masses make choices that fill their selfish desires for now and sod the future.

Do you think museums would get funding as opposed to reducing the tariffs on petrol, alcohol and football?

Mobs destroy. They always have and I imagine always will. Destroy those in power? Great! And then what? Collectively organise every facet of life again? :laugh4: Wake up.

I am a wuss? Well, coming from a blinkered idealist I am utterly unfazed.

~:smoking:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Watchman, remember that ideologies are heavily influenced by society form. The only way to get the true sum of individual decisions is for people to live in the pre-civilization society, i.e. a null society with lack of any culture but nature. All other decisions are based on the ideas that the society form imposes, and who would get to decide which society form we should have in the bottom, when people make their first choice? There is only one other alternative base society at the bottom to find out the sum of individual decisions, and that is an enlightened society where free will and openness is encouraged and allowed. But it's in man's nature to not want to live in ignorance when the reality is horrible, because it's in man's nature to survive as an individual, then survive as a species, by an offspring. People only like denial when we have let reality become so horrible that it's almost unbearable to truly understand it. We have come to that point now, and it's not an excuse to live in more denial, but a better reason than we've ever had to fight the denial. After all, it's trivial to solve the world problems if only about 50% of those with power would agree that solving them would be a good thing, and if only about 10% of the masses agreed to it. The big problem is the resistance against it, and the will to live in denial as a solopsist or nihilist. As society gets worse, people get more worried and more alienated and schizophrene (i.e. living in their own false world in their minds), which allows society to get even worse because nobody is doing anything. Solopsism and denial is not a bad thing, if it's used to cope with life, but not if you never go out of your mind world and see the real world, analyze the problems of it, and fight it when you can.



Oh dear oh dear... ever seen a mob making decisions? The Russians tried that in their civil war. After a few slaughters they replaced the generals.


Wanting the people to have freedom to make their decisions is not the same thing as saying no to organization and leadership. The concept of power has ever since the first civilization arose been a confused mix of two concepts - leadership, and status. Leadership and status can be separated, as we have seen in many cases. You put a skilled general to lead an army, but you allow the people to decide whether they want to fight the war. You let a skilled architect draw a house, but the buyer decides whether he wants the house or not.



What evidence do you have that the masses make the best decisions? Any at all? The masses make choices that fill their selfish desires for now and sod the future.


And what do the small groups of leaders do? Are they true altruists that stand above all others in moral values? Of course not! If the few make the decisions, politics will vary between favoring the different lobbyist groups that happen to hold power at the time. If you give power to the people, the politics will favor the people.



Mobs destroy.


This is by far the most class-fascistical statement I've ever heard. A man who is that afraid of the masses would hardly be a good leader for the people. People destroy and kill what they fear, if their fear is strong enough, their resistance to fear small enough, and their intellectual abilities to find an alternative way non-existing, and the problems to which they need to find an alternative solution to complex. Before the advent of civilization, the highest-status men hardly hated the masses and was dependent on them. The masses never harassed the highest-status men. Thus that conflict, if it at all exists, must be created by the infinite wisdom of the powerful men you admire so much, the men that stand above all in morality and altruism. The fear, the lack of resistance to fear, the lack of enlightenment to find peaceful solutions, and the complexity of the problems - all of that has been created by man. And not by the masses, but by the few, the enlightened who have lead nations up till the advent of voting for which dictatorship you prefer, which is the first step towards true democracy.



I am a wuss? Well, coming from a blinkered idealist I am utterly unfazed.

Better being an utopian idealist (if he really is utopian at all...) than a hateful cynic.

[Watchman]

Eh, I just find it somewhat arrogant that Zorba seems to think he knows better than the masses what they want...

Or put another way. I dislike general mental sloth, apathy and suchlike as much as the next guy over. What rubs me the wrong way is when people start thinking they have, from somewhere, aquired the right and authority to claim to know better... I've an avid distrust of ideas that claim to know what's good for people better than they do, especially if they engage in rhetoric as sanguinary as was recently presented here, and can only offer very vague and shall we say somewhat excessively optimistic ideas as to how things should be done.

Plus I'm in the opinion that people, if left to their own devices, tend to quite rapidly become clique-ish mean little narrow-minded bastards. That assorted programs of suffrage had to be force-fed down the throats of reluctant populaces by their rulers before, for example, skin color didn't ban you from certain sections of public transportation and women got to vote too, IMHO is all the proof required.

People tend to be so awfully fond of their prejudices, you see. So fond it often takes the threat of direct legal sanctions for them to let go of them long enough they actually realize those aren't such nice things after all. Once they've for a while had to coexist with reality where the realization of those prejudices is made impossible, they often agree to let go of them. The important bit is that if they weren't forced to do that most of them would never do so voluntarily...

[Reverend Joe]

Legio, being much more sane than I, put it better than I could.

And I am not a "utopian idealist." I am just a borderline skitzophrenic with a good grasp of the english language and a psychedelic mindset. I mean, would you call Charlie Manson a utopian idealist? (Granted, I haven't killed anyone... yet.)

And Rory... you're still a panzy. You would rather hide behind your dry-humour smile and do nothing than try to help once in a while. You are a coward, but what's more, you know what how we are leading ourselves to ruin, and you sit back and do nothing but make fun of the masses. That is narcissism of the highest order, and I am getting tired of seeing it. Too many young men of my generation have surrendered to this arrogant, synical narcissism. Yet it is this arrogant attitude that is in itself the biggest problem. You could be out there, at the very least shouting and railing on about what is wrong; maybe even suggesting ways to fix it. But no. You prefer to set yourself on a high seat, closed off from the world, and mock your fellow man. And that is why you are a cowardly narcissist.

[Reverend Joe]

Eh, I just find it somewhat arrogant that Zorba seems to think he knows better than the masses what they want...

Or put another way. I dislike general mental sloth, apathy and suchlike as much as the next guy over. What rubs me the wrong way is when people start thinking they have, from somewhere, aquired the right and authority to claim to know better... I've an avid distrust of ideas that claim to know what's good for people better than they do, especially if they engage in rhetoric as sanguinary as was recently presented here, and can only offer very vague and shall we say somewhat excessively optimistic ideas as to how things should be done.

Plus I'm in the opinion that people, if left to their own devices, tend to quite rapidly become clique-ish mean little narrow-minded bastards. That assorted programs of suffrage had to be force-fed down the throats of reluctant populaces by their rulers before, for example, skin color didn't ban you from certain sections of public transportation and women got to vote too, IMHO is all the proof required.
Good point; but what I was trying to say was that, individually, people usually know what to do. I want them to make their own decisions, not to follow what everyone else says; and if the majority makes the wrong decisions, then humanity self-destructs. It's as simple as survival of the best-adapted. If we can learn to think for ourselves, we may just avoid the hammer of nature. But individuals are not prejudiced, until a society ingrains it in them. That is a proven fact.

[Fragony]

Holy crap! :dizzy2: administer 50cc testosteron asap, quik we are losing him!!!

[solypsist]

re Should we destroy earth and kill ourselves?

this question presupposes that we haven't yet started.

[rory_20_uk]

You have yet to mention how to "fix" society. I imagine it is easier to lash into me about what a cowardly arrogant person I am.

Come on then, out with it. Tell me how you'd sove the problems of the planet. I can't even solve my medical school taking 3 months to come up with a certificate, leaving me unemployed.

Have you heard of Speaker's Corner? It's the place people can come to shout and scream to their heart's content about the world and what to do to fix it. Basically it is a landmark where the borderline insane can come to rant.

You want me and others like me to waste my life trying to get the masses more involved? I could be helping as a Doctor, but you'd rather I shout at people... :inquisitive:

Sure, my own life would be crappy. I'd be unemployed and viewed as mad, but as long as I'm heroically throwing my life away you'd be happy :dizzy2:

Please can you show where the fact that people are not prejudiced comes from? Children can spot genetic defects in others without any prompting. Probably harkens back to the days when they'd be killed for the good of the pack. I think you are again romanticising a time that never existed.

~:smoking:

[Reverend Joe]

When in the hell did I say quit your job and run around screaming at people?! You can run around, ranting and raving, and still be employed! And what does being a doctor have to do with anything?! I thought we were speaking abstractly here, and suddenly you go off on some other tangent...


...This is a plot to drive me over the edge, isn't it?! Come on, out oith it! I know you bastards have been watching me, pushing me quietly... You, Gawain and Divinus... :stare: Well, I'll tell you something, Jack- I won't be going crazy until I say so!

[rory_20_uk]

Zorba, that had me in stitches. :laugh4: :thumbsup:

Abstractly yelling at people. So, basically not yelling at anyone. So I can keep my job, just waste my free time metaphorically yelling at people. :inquisitive:

Hell's bells - if I can't get winos to give up the juice after they nearly died from vomiting blood I don't think at the odds for the rest of humanity are great.

Sanity is a point of view. As long as the majority of your personalities vote you're sane, it's OK. If you're down on the mid terms, just lobby the dissenters harder before the next main vote... :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

Good point; but what I was trying to say was that, individually, people usually know what to do.:inquisitive: Indeed ? Most seem to have avid difficulties managing their life in a fashion that results in them being happy - I'm all too familiar with the phenomenom myself. Moreover, while people nonetheless tend to be reasonably competent in resolving "everyday" problems relating to their daily life and own "scope", more complicated issues in a scale far beyond their normal horizon... well, let's just say that I'll far rather leave those to trained specialists reined in by the democratic leash than to the average "man on the street", who quite frankly usually hasn't the slightest idea of what it's actually all about anyway and can offer only completely bogus, populist, unworkable, or otherwise faulty ideas as to the solutions, or simply doesn't give a damn because (so far as he can perceive) they don't affect him personally.

You go to a trained specialist to get your car fixed too after all, don't you ? And you rely on trained specialists to have it built in the first place, right ? And you expect someone keeps an eye on all these people so they do their job properly, right ?

It seems to me you are advocating some sort of direct-democracy/enlightened anarchy model. Well, I'll grant that those actually are workable. The problem is, they only work in small-scale Gemeinschaft societies - large-scale Gesellschaft societies, such as the modern Western one has been for a long time now, are simply too large and complicated and fluid and, frankly, difficult to genuinely comprehend, for those types to handle. Nevermind now when umpteen such amorphous nets connect together on the global scale. Governements and other actors on that level expend considerable energy and resources merely in the Red Queen's Race of keeping informed with the developements, and in distilling all that data into something comprehensible and useful...


But individuals are not prejudiced, until a society ingrains it in them. That is a proven fact.I can actually observe this in practice; my window gives to the playground of the neighboring block, and the Finnish and African-immigrant little kids there seem to get along right fine.

However, any number of people above one makes up a society. And groups have an uncomfortable habit of defining themselves through the exclusion of others... Nevermind now externalizing blame and other such nice practices.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm sorry rory_20_uk, but I think we're all being a bit utopian in our thoughts. If the few are to rule, we have to make sure the correct few get to power, but that's impossible to achieve once the power structures are in place. Furthermore power seems to always corrupt people, so even if you overcome the first problem not everything will be solved. I think the best idea, and that has been my strategy in political philosophy the last few years, is to start by just looking at the cause and effect systems, trying to analyze and find them. Maybe when we know the building blocks, and know why the successful (as in peaceful and high in life quality) societies became so, we'll be able to recreate the ideal society, or at least a reactionary (as opposed to radical) society that is much better than anything we've got before. Either of those would be a very good achievement.

I truly think this statement of yours summarizes the biggest problem we have to overcome:



Sure, my own life would be crappy. I'd be unemployed and viewed as mad, but as long as I'm heroically throwing my life away


The fact that society doesn't allow us to save ourself. The fact that there's no time for finding solutions to the society problems because the labor market forces you to work so hard, often also in your spare time, to be able to compete for the jobs. What that means, is that bad society forms prevents us from defeating bad society forms. The scary thing is on the other hand that with today's knowledge it's very likely that we could solve all world problems if we wouldn't be so controlled by society.

[Avicenna]

No need to waste your nukes. We have an overdue mass extinction coming right up.

[Xiahou]

Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth (http://www.livescience.com/technology/destroy_earth_mp.html)

I say let's do it. :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

:rtwyes:
That one's going into my Favourites.
:balloon2: ~:thumb:

[BigTex]

You will need: a microscopic black hole. Note that black holes are not eternal, they evaporate due to Hawking radiation. For your average black hole this takes an unimaginable amount of time, but for really small ones it could happen almost instantaneously, as evaporation time is dependent on mass. Therefore you microscopic black hole must have greater than a certain threshold mass, roughly equal to the mass of Mount Everest. Creating a microscopic black hole is tricky, since one needs a reasonable amount of neutronium, but may possibly be achievable by jamming large numbers of atomic nuclei together until they stick. This is left as an exercise to the reader.
Method: simply place your black hole on the surface of the Earth and wait. Black holes are of such high density that they pass through ordinary matter like a stone through the air. The black hole will plummet through the ground, eating its way to the center of the Earth and all the way through to the other side: then, it'll oscillate back, over and over like a matter-absorbing pendulum. Eventually it will come to rest at the core, having absorbed enough matter to slow it down. Then you just need to wait, while it sits and consumes matter until the whole Earth is gone.

Highly, highly unlikely. But not impossible.

Earth's final resting place: a singularity of almost zero size, which will then proceed to happily orbit the Sun as normal.

Source: "The Dark Side Of The Sun," by Terry Pratchett. It is true that the microscopic black hole idea is an age-old science fiction mainstay which predates Pratchett by a long time, he was my original source for the idea, so that's what I'm putting.


That has got to be my favorite one.:idea2:

[A.Saturnus]

I`m glad someone finally point out the difficulty of destroying earth. Obviously we'd have to hurl it into the sun. The other options are just too unlikely.
Here's my suggestion: we need a huge underground place like a large cave. It has to be sealed up very good. Before the sealing we fill the place with hydrogen and one large nuclear bomb. Done professionally, this could result in a huge thermonuclear bomb certainly powerfull enough to wipe out any recognizable object on the surface but not powerfull enough to wipe out earth. Here comes the difficult part: we have to blow it in such a way that the explosion propells earth into the sun.
Of course, this would require the joined efforts of all of earth's societies. We have to put away our differences and work together for the common goal: the ultimate destruction of earth.

[Divinus Arma]

...This is a plot to drive me over the edge, isn't it?! Come on, out oith it! I know you bastards have been watching me, pushing me quietly... You, Gawain and Divinus... :stare: Well, I'll tell you something, Jack- I won't be going crazy until I say so!

What did I do? :embarassed: I never even posted in this thread. :ahh:

[Strike For The South]

Well time for plan B