Ice Demon

I not saying it doesn't have flaws. Im saying it is as close to perfect as we are going to get. I find no reason to counter your points because I know you can't come up with a better humanity. All in all, my idea of humanity is better than yours, seeing you can't even come up with one.

No it can be washed out of people. What should I take over first, The US or A third world country for my plot of World Domination? *evil laugh*

Without the emotions to enjoy life, to derive personal meaining from life, there is no point to life at all. Might as well just hole up in the dirt and fossilize right now. You'd essentially accomplish just as much.

-----

It has EVERYTHING to do with it!!! This isn't just one robotic person, this is every person. Not one person being happy vs mindless, but billions of people. The whole is not just a great web of the many, it is the sytem in which the many live their own, distinct lives, the very distinct lives that give point to life, that actually serve as the breeding grounds for all the things that give humanity its few redeeming qualities, technology included. Because technology isn't just a drive to succeed, it is fueled by passion, by desires, needs and wants, the wonder of discovery, the joy of finding the truth, the satisfaction of accomplishment. In almost every era you see, you will find that the greatest technologies are those of war, fed by war, which is in turn feuled by the hearts of individual people. And of all the greatest technologies of the ancient past, many were created by men alone who put their hearts into creating, not for any reason or goal, but just to create for the Hell of it, from Heron to Archimedes to Da Vinci. Were they sought to create specific inventions? Were they employed for their skills? Of course, but in each, and in others, you will see that their drive was not based on this, but rather on soemthing from within, soemthing with heart.

Soulless efficiency won't lead to advancement, but decay. Without something to work for, to attain on the personal level, there is no reward for work, so why try at all?

 

 

But there is still a point to living even without emotion. Think about a colony of ants. Do the ants just give up and stop working because they cannot derive personal satisfaction from their work? Of course not. They work to contribute the the well-being and survival of the colony as a whole. There is no need for emotion to drive them to work. Humans are nothing more than animals that have developed intelligence, so if you take away humanity's emotions, the result will not be much different. Our intelligence would only mean that we could work towards advancement rather than just survival.

 

 

We aren't a computer program, we're living, thinking, feeling beings, and that is the only kind of life worth living at all.

 

 

That may be true to those that have known emotions, but to those that have never had emotions, such a conjecture can never be made. Just like animals that do not have humans emotions will never think their lives are worthless because of that, humans several generations down who no longer remember emotions won't think that, either.

Mokele:

When was the last time Taoism or Buddhism caused a war?

 

 

Most eastern religions aren't so much religions as they are ways of life.

 

 

Furthermore, your information is wrong; while religion has *sometimes* held back science, it has also sometimes greatly aided it. In fact, in Islam, studying mathematics, astronomy and such are explicitly listed as works for the glory of God.

 

 

If it weren't for the Catholic Church pushing astronomy back almost 1000 years, Islam would have had almost no astronomy to study, as they would have soon reached the limit of what you can learn about astronomy without having a telescope.

Not to mention that the theory of creationism, which most western religions are based around, conflicts with evolution. And evolution has been as good as proved by science.

 

 

On top of that, you assume that what is new is automatically good and progress should never be held back, which is logically fallacious.

 

 

Then why don't you try providing some examples of that?

 

 

A world without love? or kindness? Or honesty? Remember, honesty is a moral too. Not to mention things like not murdering random people for the sheer fun of it.

 

 

Yes, but things like honesty would still exist, and people wouldn't be allowed to just kill each other. They would be a matter of efficiency rather than morals. Obviously murdering random people is detrimental to the efficiency of humanity as a whole, so it would not be tolerated.

 

 

Without emotion, life is an empty waste devoid of anything but mechanistic productivity. Without morals and ethics, life would be a nightmare in which the strong hold total control over the weak with no restraint or mercy.

 

 

But with the caste system I explained, there would be almost no difference between the strong and the weak, everyone would be as good as equal.

 

 

Also, remember that wonder is an emotion, and without the capacity to look at the night sky or a coral reef and marvel at it's beauty, science is effectively dead. In fact, one could even consider curiousity, and even more vital component of science, to be an emotion.

 

 

But even without emotion, we would still have instinct and intelligence. Our natural instincts tell us to do what is necessary to survive, and our intelligence drives that instinct further, making us look for ways to survive better or more conveniently, and ways to survive longer. In that way, science would continue to move on.

 

 

And if that government goes bad, there's no escape.

 

 

So you'd rather have warfare between governments?

 

 

 

And what of things that are wanted, but not needed? And things of which there simply isn't enough to go around?

 

 

For your first question, I assume you are referring to entertainment and such. But without the emotion of fun and enjoyment, there simply wouldn't be any need for it. And where there isn't enough of something to go around, at least it would be as evenly spread as possible. Situations that can happen today where 90% of a given necessity goes to the most powerful 10% of the people would be avoided.

 

 

There's skill and there's passion. I am a highly skilled engineer, but I lack any passion for it at all, thus I moved to physics. Just because someone is *good* at something doesn't mean it's what they want to do.

 

 

People want to do certain jobs because they bring them joy and happiness. Without emotion, that is obviously not an issue. So it's the greatest benefit to the whole that a person does what they are most skilled at, and can thus make the greatest possible contribution.

 

 

Why? What's so hot about efficiency? Why not strive for happiness or something else?

 

 

 

What does one person being happy do to help the greater body of humanity?

 

 

We're not gears in a machine; we're a horde of squabbling monkeys. The only way to change that is to grow your gear-people in a lab, specially engineered to spec.

 

 

And who's to say that won't be possible in time?

 

And also, ideas can be forced onto unwilling people, so they eventually believe them. Just look at the growth of Christianity.

 

 

Yes, because Nash, Hawking, Hooke and others who have had various mental or physical infirmities have never contributed anything.

 

 

That's right, they did nothing someone else couldn't have done.

 

-Demosthenes-:

This is a curious subject. Ice demons definition seems to be meant to make to greatest amount of peace and the least amount of conflict. But this seems, at further study, extremely dissatisfying when you take into account the absence of emotion and human differences. Why do anything?

 

It seems you perfect world is not really a world of humans, but a world of mindless multi-celled organisms.

Mindless no. Mindful. completly aware of others and surroundings.

JonM:

Sounds kind of like communism?

Whats so wrong with communism? Communism without dicatorship would be the best thing that can happen to the planet.

This is a post about what you think would make humanity perfect. That is my aspect of a perfect humanity, whats your? Do you have a better idea, Mr. Critism?

lol. Wouldn't it be awsome to have a world like that?

 

-Shawn Nichols

Crically insane leaders would not want to be under a central government. Like leaders of Cuba, Kazakhstan, North Korea, and Iran would not want to be put out of power and people that will back them up is dangerous.

I say it goes deeper than that. It only works because there are other enemies in the galaxy and was manditory for Earth to act as one. If it would to be found that life never existed on other planets, then Nations would rather fight to the death rather than form a central government. The Us for example would not want to be under someone elses rule. The altimate question is who would rule the central government?

I don't watch much star trek but are you thinking of utopia?

Thanks. Then again that is just my idea of a perfect humanity.

As the title says, what is your idea of a perfect humanity? How do you envision the human race at it's best?

 

Since I'll be copying/pasting most of my ideas from another board, first I'll say a few relevant things I mentioned in other topics at that board:

 

First off, I believe in the importance of the large-scale over the importance of the small scale. In terms of humanity as it relates to this topic, the success and/or prosperity of humanity as a whole is far more important than the success and/or prosperity of an individual or community. It is because of this that I am against religion. While religion may provide support for the individual or believing community, it has many negative consequences on the larger scale. First off, religion provides another way for people with extremist views to discriminate, as if ethnicity and nationality weren't enough. Also, just the existence of different religions causes fighting and sometimes wars. Even if the core beliefs of a religion are tolerant of other religions, there will always be some extremists that believe all people of other religions are inferior and must die. And since it's all too common for people to stereotype, other religions may look at the acts of these extremists as representing the entire religion, and then serious conflicts get started.

But anyways, this topic isn't supposed to be just about religion, so now onto my ideas for the topic.

 

It would contain primarily the following:

 

1) Elimination of All Religion

As long as it has existed, religion has held back scientific and technological advancement in favor of older beliefs and lifestyles. If we ever hope to achieve greatness through scientific and technological prowess, getting rid of religion is a must. Not to mention that the conflicts caused by religion would be simply unacceptable.

 

2) Elimination of Human Emotions and Morals

As with religion, emotion and morals hamper scientific and technological progress. Debates over things like abortion and genetic cloning because of moral issues could not be allowed to happen. Also, many emotions, especially love and anger, can bring about irrational decisions with severe negative consequences.

 

3) Elimination of All Ethnical and Racial Differences

Put simply, ethnicity makes room for discrimination, which could not be allowed to happen.

 

4) Elimination of All Current National Borders in Favor of One Centralized Earth Government

As with all other conflicts, fighting between countries is not something that could be allowed to happen. Also, debts between countries can cause unnecessary problems, especially when a country that is already in debt suffers from a natural disaster or the like. One central government would make it much easier for areas that need aid to get it, as areas with a surplus could donate without having to worry about debt, paybacks, etc. In addition, it would be much easier to spread new technology to all parts of the globe, so there wouldn't end up being richer areas with all the technology and poorer areas forced to live a more primitive life.

 

5) Elimination of the Currency System

The currency system allows for certain individuals to amass large amounts of wealth, while others are stuck in poverty. A better system could involve everyone having a work ID card given to them from their job, that would work as proof that they are working. Then someone would only have to present this card to take whatever items they need from a store, etc. Also, many issues, including the funding of major projects and the like, would be avoided.

 

6) Development of a Caste Work System

For those of you that don't know, a caste system basically involves having different castes, each with a specific job, or task. Each person would join one of the castes, depending on what their talents are, and be assigned work by that caste. Some examples of possible castes would be:

 

Leadership Caste - They are the leaders of the government.

 

Worker Caste - They mostly perform simple labor.

 

Scientist Caste - They're obviously the ones doing the experiments and making scientific discoveries.

 

Engineer Caste - They put the work of the scientist's to use in developing new technology.

 

Medical Caste - They are the doctors, as well as those that research and develop new medicines.

 

Warrior Caste - They protect the people in times of war.

 

All-Around Caste - They basically help out the other castes with general things, and fill in gaps when needed.

 

Obviously this is just a rough sketch, there would be more, but you get the idea. And before anyone else mentions this, I am aware that this is somewhat contradictory to my previous ideas of eliminating all mediums of discrimination possible, as it would be possible to discriminate based on a person's caste. But I still think that this system would make for maximum efficiency.

 

And some other things to note:

A more general idea for how I would have things done, is to run humanity like a machine. The entire human population would be the machine, and each person would be like a part of that machine. And as with any machine, if a part is malfunctioning or broken, you replace it. So when someone continually fails their assigned jobs, or breaks any law, they would either be executed, or move down to menial labor work as punishment. Jail would only be for those awaiting trial, as it's a waste of space and resources after that.

Also, there would be the execution of all mentally and physically disabled people. Now, I know what some of you are going to say to this, but I am not trying to say that these people deserve to die, because everyone does deserve a chance. However, it's just not worth it to spend resources nurturing people that won't be able to give much, if anything at all, back to society.

 

 

Sorry if this dragged on for too long… ;;

Hmmm....Sorry if its in the wrong place. I just wanted to hear different peoples oppinions. I don't think it will ever happen. But...if we are human robot hybrids it will be both their faults. It keeps me wondering.

Do you think robots will conquer the world? If so, who's fault is it? The robots or the humans?

You can have a genetically same clone. The odds are: about 712,923,984,000:1. Thats over 700 trillion! There is about 6,219,200 people on the planet. Most likely no one will ever see a genetic copy of them self in their lifetime. That includes "cloning" an animal like dolly.

Want a simple answer? Money. It would be 1. to expensive and 2. technology and time. It is a lot simpler with radioactive elements because of there unstable qualities. Hydogen bombs work in a different way, but with the same concept.

Scientifically that is true, but its just thoeretical. It is in some ways true, but depending on circumstances r could be less and still have more force. Its like reverse magmetism.