the Utopia

Humanity has been there before, meaning possibly unforgiveness, may be what i'm reading into this. Am I correct?

 

At this current state? no.

It is going to take a very very long time, but it will be reached.

 

Asked myself that question many times over the years. I don't think it nature's way, but it may be a way. What would the options be? Pestilence, famine, disease?

 

War, a.k.a. killing, IS natures way. Trees engage in decades-long battles with each other for nutrients and sunlight. Predators kill prey. Big fish swallow smaller fish. Birds eat bugs, bugs bite humans, humans kill snakes, and snakes eat birds.

War, as in the systematic destruction of another group of humans, is not natures way. Humans are the only creatures on earth that will fly thousands of miles to drop bombs on our own kind, just because we don't agree with each other.

As far as overpopulation is concerned, in nature, when one group becomes too large for an area, it's prey dies out more quickly, thereby causing die-back of the overpopulated creatures. Humans, having discovered farming, mass production, and mass transport, have so far gotten around this evolutionary fail safe. In certain areas of the planet, at any rate. This will, eventually, fail.

 

Your life now is someone else's utopia.

 

nice
good point

 

I have a hard time accepting that people have a universal nature, I don't like to think that there is inherently something violent and competitive in our natures by default.

But, it could be so.

It is like that in the animal kingdom and even in the plant kingdom. We're still products of the natural world.

However, there are people who transcend this and strive or yearn for peace and collective well-being. So, there is a choice and our destructive natures can be overcome. Based on this, humanity does have the capability to rationalize that war is deadly and wrong.

I think that someday, there will be a consensus on this. Maybe a social evolution if we don't destory ourselves and the planet before we get there. But our civilization as we know it will have to radically change. In what ways, I'm not really sure.

Industrialization has wreaked havoc on the planet in less than two hundred years. Ecologically and socially.

We've advanced technologically in ways that allow us to stay alive (medical) but we've also advanced our weapons.

There have always been wars but now we've got the means to fly thousands of miles just to bomb entire cities (as Sinistrad said) or destroy a nation with a press of a button.

Now that's an interesting question. Based on evolution, it assumes that we're born to live and perpetuate genes, that's it. That's the meaning of life. Just to merely exist; that we construct our own personal meanings.

However, there is also a self-destruct mode to keep it in check. If that is natural law, who is to say that this self-destruction is 'bad'? and from where do we define the word 'bad'? So then to live for collective well-being would go against nature and the law of the Universe and that would be 'bad'?

I'm sort of rambling and lost in thought now. I haven't really answered your question. I don't know if I can.

 

As long as there is conflict over resources, there will be war. If humanity ever manages to gain a virtually infinite energy source, then war would probably cease to exist.

 

There have always been murder which is pretty much the same thing as war.

I think that humanity already knows, but emotion gets the better of us. 9/11 is a good example of America going to war do to fear/revenge (emotion)

Is this a past tense or a future tense question?

I feel this is a repeat of an earlier question

Even though I am contradicting what I said earlier, I am not convinced that violence (war) is wrong, I just dont want to be victim to it.

I dont think nature is a thinking entity like Mother Nature/ Father Time/ Greenman/ whathaveyou.

But it is probably a positive side effect for some other reason there is war which I am not aware of.

 

Some one will want to control it. Probably a Rothschild.

 

Well what are the motives for war?

Greed, revenge....?

 

Why are you not convinced of this?

Well, duhh! =D

Nature doesn't have to be a thinking entity according to evolution or atheism. Which is what I assume the questions are based off of. I didn't read anything theological into this question.

 

I don't think Utopia is possible. People love conflict way too much. If there's nothing to overcome, then we get bored, and since we are constantly learning ways to beat nature, and no longer have to try at it, we are quickly becoming closer to absolute boredom but the the unending source of conflict: each other. sorry for being such a pessimist, but hats the way I see it.

 

But why do we love conflict so much? That's the thing. If we understood that, maybe we could overcome that.

 

Humans as a species are poor at learning from history, better at learning from presonal experience, and best at not learning anything at all.

I agree with IndigoSensor (again). Currently, utopia is not possible. Barring divine intervention, it'll take something like a massive war that wipes out a large portion of humanity, and a good dose of fortune/luck/providence that the remaing humans learn. We have to limit our population, we have to be unified, we have to set boundaries on ourselves. Actually, that last part is probably the biggest - what boundaries does humanity place on itself? Earth can't sustain an infinite number of humans. Nor can materialism be sustained at the current pace. We must limit ourselves, or our greed for more (food, pleasure, wealth, power, status, sex, you name it!) will destroy us. That's why it'll take something big - to wake us up and make us realize we can't continue to live like this.

 

Why should I be? Do you have a reason that I should or do you just think it is wrong cause you dont like it? That can be your reason of course. Just wondering.

I think my comment still holds either way.

I dont love conflict. I tend to avoid it. Unless I'm wrastlin' S.T.M..

 

It's not that we love conflict; it's that conflict is the natural result to living without limits. I want this fruit tree, but you do too. Instead of reasoning it out and getting along like good neighbours (the mature response), we fight over it. If I kill you, I get the tree. If you kill me, you get the tree. If I burn the tree down, nobody gets it. If we both kill each other, the next guy gets it. This, sadly, is humanity's current approach to many problems today.

Again, it's not that we love conflict, we just don't respond appropriately to conflicts of interest.

 

No, I don't think you should or should not anything. I'm just curious as to how you've come to this conclusion. You didn't explain why. I'd like to know why.