Where is the world going?

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 3:36 am

I hope no one has put this up for discusion yet... but anyway here goes:

A couple of friends and I recently discussed where our world is going on the political scale. And someone brought up an interesting point of view: He states our world is becoming more and more right wing, distructive and aggresive. Seeing what happened to france, they almost got a fascist as a president, then you've got Geoge W. Bush, who can't wait to test the new weapons his reaserchers have created on some helpless muslims, plus statistics say neo nazi violence has gone up in the last year. and the list goes on and on and on... me myself being extremely left wing think this world is goint to ruin, since we humans in nature are self destructive, taking resources without regard of the future. Us being the only species or race that adapt our surroundings as we see fit, not the other way around as all the other creatures. Your opinion??? Your view???

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 3:53 am

Where is the world going?

Since this is my "Silent Week" I won't make much words.

To sum it up :

No worries, humanity will adapt. . . we ALWAYS do...

Beldin

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:16 am

I don't think the world is getting any more destructive in its thinking, rather the weapons used are a great deal more destructive.

I think another part of the problem is how exposed everyone is to the media these days. The same problems the world has always suffered are displayed for all to see (well if you want to).

Will add more when I am in a ranting mood

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 6:21 am

Originally posted by Lintelyg
And someone brought up an interesting point of view: He states our world is becoming more and more right wing, distructive and aggresive.

Not so. In fact, nations of the world are less aggressive today than they were even 50 years ago. Part of it is because of doomsday weapons (ie-MIRVs, etc.) but it's also because multi-national corporations have cut into the main reason why people went to war in the first place.

Consider this: What do people fight over the most? Resources. Even the blood fued between the Israelis and the Palestineans is about land. Same thing for the fighting between the Irish and the British. On a larger scale, the Crusades were about controlling trade routes and natural resources wrapped in the disguise of a holy war. World War II was partially about revenge over the First War and national pride, but it was also about controlling the land and resources. Why did the Nazis want to control Romania? Oil. What was one of the first thing Hitler did upon usurping power? Re-militarise the Ruhr.

Multi-nationals corporations and the global economy have reduced the main need to go to war. Instead of self-contained economies where one nation or sphere controls as much resources as they can, that control has gone from governments to corporations, who generally don't like warfare because it's disruptive to trade and it takes away productive soldiers to fight and die.

The places where wars flourish are in the Third World where people are still fighting for control of resources, sometimes as basic as food supplies. It is my belief that we will never see another large-scale conventional war between major nations. What we will continue to see are localised regional conflicts either between a larger nation and a smaller nation (ie-US in Afghanistan) or two or more smaller nations going at it.

The differential in power between the First World and the Third World has led countries like the United States to be more brazen in its relations (because no one can stop us), but I don't think that the world will see a situation like the Second World War when we had to rebuild major industrial centers and large cities after the fighting stops.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:41 am

I agree with our friend HighLordDave. (Except the religious causes of the troubles in Ireland are further back than the gerrymandering, land causes...)

The world is in no way getting more right wing or aggressive. Sure, things may be worse now than they were a year and a month ago, but they are better than they have ever been before, on a worldwide scale. It is my honest belief that a larger proportion of people now live in health and happiness than ever have before (although of course noone can know...). Much suffering has to take place, and always will, because people are greedy animals - but as far as I can see the only bad way the world is going is to environmental catastrophe, not political...

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 2:48 pm

The world is going to hell and we all deserve it. So kick back, relax and enjoy the ride. Satan needs lesser daemons to do his bidding - I'm gettting my resume filled out ahead of time.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 2:57 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy
The world is going to hell and we all deserve it. So kick back, relax and enjoy the ride. Satan needs lesser daemons to do his bidding - I'm gettting my resume filled out ahead of time.

Not if you repent my son and give money to MERF, it's the only true solution...

If you study history you will see atrocity after atrocity, it makes me question if there was ever a time that wasn't "going to hell" as I see it we all just have to live our lives, do what we have to to get by without harming other people and that way hopefully things will get on an even keel.

The major problem that I see is a lack of personal responsibility, like the story of a woman who sued McDonalds because she scalded herself with coffee, she claimed she didn't know it was hot and no one told her, the court agreed and made McDonalds pay...does that seem ridiculous to anyone else?

Accepting responsibility really isn't that hard, you do something wrong, you admit to it...why do people find that so hard?

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 3:32 pm

Mr Sleep - agree 100% on the responsibility issue. That is one of my major gripes with the world.

On the other hand, I disagree with the live our lives sentiment - people go out of their way to stop others from living theirs, sometimes you just have to get out of your shell and defend yourself.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 3:39 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy
On the other hand, I disagree with the live our lives sentiment - people go out of their way to stop others from living theirs, sometimes you just have to get out of your shell and defend yourself.

I mean from the point of view that I don't force my ideology down your throat, I don't make a point of trying to make you live like I do because I think it is superior. Of course smacking the odd person around the head is a necessary component

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:11 pm

I think that the world *will* kill itself, but I'll have doubts as long as I know there are educated people around, like the people on these forums. Simply, by my view, as long as we always question our gouvernment, things will work out.

What we do need, though, is a law about "commen sense". Simply, a judge could just laugh at the lady burnt by the hot coffee from McDonald's.

I'm serious, though.

BaronTx · Post by **BaronTx** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 7:25 pm

With the world population growing and technology advancing, I fear for the the earth and the human race. But having said that, I don't think we will totally destroy ourselves or the planet. Man is the most adaptable of species and the earth is remarkable at healing itself. Have y'all ever read "The Mote in God's Eye"? I can envision something like what the moties went through, occuring in our future.

Virgil57 · Post by **Virgil57** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 8:15 pm

I really don't think the world is chagning that much and I don't believe that the "right wing" is the cause of all the problems. As people have stated striffe is not a new thing to the world, it had been going on since the begining of time. It will, IMO, continue until the end of time. I am an American and I don't think that going after Osama (I am assuming this what you imply by using weapons on muslims) is anti muslim at all, more like protecting ourselves from future attacks. If your contry was attacked by another, would you just ignore the damage/loss of life? Wait for it to happen again? Gerorge W isn't out to commit genocide as you make it sound, but eliminate a terroist group that happens to be run by muslims. BTW the attacks of the WTC were most likley against the ideals of western civilization as well, in which case it affects much, much more than just the US. Neo-natzi violence has probably gone up in the past year due to the attack as well. The racist neo-natzi mentality was just fed by the attack b/c it gave them a new outlet: the muslim people. Severly racist individuals, such as them need very little reason to do the things they do.

As far as the way the environment is treated things are getting much better than they were in the early 1900's. Granted there are still huge environmental issues at hand, things are improving in the broad picture. Many changes don't happen over night and it is up to people to stay involved in their government. Much of the pollution still comes from nations that have very lax pollution laws. China for example could cut their pollution by at leats 25% by implementing modern pollution reducing technology. Their government doesn't exactly push the issue, so who's going to make them implement it? I garuntee that the multi-national corps who go over there won't b/c it will cut into their profits.

I think that large scale aggression has ended with the production of doomsday weapons. WW3 would basically mean the end of the world, so I think that most of the developed nations know this is not an option. If some more errant countries or zealots were to get a hold of nukes, the world could become a very scary place. I think that is something that all contries should try to stop/regulate.

Well, that kinda sums things up and this is getting long. So, I;m done

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:46 pm

@Virgil57

Yeah but just look at the history of Osama, I don't mean to start a fight, but the americans brought it upon theirselves. The CIA trained Osama, he also studied in harvard. Which means they created their own nemesis. And the biggest thing of all here is, that Osama is defending his country. If America would just stop bossing all those countries around maybe they'd have less problems. I'm not saying what Osama did was good, but in the beginning of things, it was America who started it, and now that it's out of control, they twist the whole story around. Concerning weapons of mass destruction: America can have nukes and doomsday devices, but other countries can't??? I think that says it all. America is abusing their power.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:55 pm

Re: @Virgil57

Originally posted by Lintelyg
Yeah but just look at the history of Osama, I don't mean to start a fight, but the americans brought it upon theirselves.

@Lintelyg, considering the horror that Americans went through on 9/11/01 and subsequent grief thanks to bin Ladan, this remark is in exceptionally poor taste. I would remind you that courtesy extends not only to an individual, but to a nation. Please refrain from such attacks in the future.

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:11 pm

@fable

take it easy dude, i seriously meant no offence here alright, just trying to make a point. That post was NOT an attack against anybody, and if it makes everybody happy: SORRY. And i'll try to keep my opinions in control next time alright? Am i forgiven????

Virgil57 · Post by **Virgil57** » Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:32 pm

I didn't say only America could have nukes. I said only developed contries could have them, because only developed or more developed nations have access to the technology created. I would hope that all these nations relize the power and danger of these weapons. Yeah the CIA trained Osama in some respects. We helped him to defeat the USSR because we wanted to fight communism. So he went to Harvard, it is a college and anyone has the right to apply to that school. America didn't create a monster that blew up in our face, Osama just chose to abuse the things we gave him and the freedoms that are given to anyone who is under US law, via citizenship or student visas.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 12:37 am

@Lintelyg, this isn't a matter of "forgiveness" or "taking it easy, dude."

This is a matter of really causing hurt to some SYM people who lost relatives and friends in 9/11, in the Twin Towers. So just 1) think how they feel, 2) reread your earlier remarks, 3) put away your attitude, and 4) carry on with an ounce more consideration for others. In that case, you shouldn't have any problems.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 1:12 am

"Yeah but just look at the history of Osama, I don't mean to start a fight, but the americans brought it upon theirselves. "

This is fighting talk - fable is right. Drop it now.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 5:20 am

Originally posted by Virgil57
I didn't say only America could have nukes. I said only developed contries could have them, because only developed or more developed nations have access to the technology created. I would hope that all these nations relize the power and danger of these weapons.

LMAO!! You cannot be serious... "Only developed or more developed nations have access to the technology created"? It's not difficult to buy technology and material in the back route from any countries. How about paying up to scientists whose interest is to create more powerful weapon but cannot do in their own country due to the restriction? You may think it's unrealistic, but that's exactly what happened when Tokyo subway was targetted by the cult. The scientists involved weren't remotely interested in the belief of the cult; they were only interested in trying out the Sarin bomb they created, and the cult group provided them the facility, money, and opportunity they needed.

Secondly, how many people in these nation which "officially" possess the nuclear weapons, ie. the US and UK, actually realize the poser and danger, do you think? Not many, I believe. And, quite frankly, most people don't even give a damn whether they know or not either.

EDIT:
"US and US"? It must be in my unconscious...

Virgil57 · Post by **Virgil57** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 2:23 pm

Small tactical nukes may fall into the hands of lesser developed nations, but the likleyhood of an underdeveloped nation aquire both potented nuclear technology and the means to launch it around the world? I highly doubt that the later is true. Even if there was some kind of rogue scientist I doubt very much they could aquire the rocket technology/advanced guidance/fuel systems etc. to deploy them too quicky. All technology becomes outdated, eventually almost all countries will have nukes, but that tech will be replaced by some new far more devastaing technology that will again be isolated to developed wealthier nations (at least for the time being). The cost of making a Sarin bomb and a long range nuke such as an ICBM are VASTLY different. Do you really think that other countries don't know about the 10 of thousands of nukes that the rest of the world has? I garuntee you that if just one is fired, it will set off a chain reaction that will probably level most of the major cities in the world. That is something that I truly belive no nation would do. Terrorists or some kind of zealot my try such a thing.

Secondly, how many people in these nation which "officially" possess the nuclear weapons, ie. US and US, actually realize the poser and danger, do you think? Not many, I believe.

I think that everyone who has ever lived through either WW2/Cold War or learned about it can relize the danger that such weapons can cause.

Even if you look at the nations that posses nuclear technology the long range nukes still are only held by nations that are developed. Ziare ofr example does not have the tech. to build anything on the scale of an ICBM and I believe that it will be some time before it will. The countries which have much more limited capability including Pakistan, Isreal, and probably (or very soon to be) Iraq. These aren't escatly what the world calls totaly undeveloped 3rd world nations. They are developing nations that are simply behind a bit in terms of technology. I didn't say that nuclear weapons would never be aquired by the majority of nations, I simply meant that right now the only countries with nulcear weapons of global reach are the more developed nations.