Humanity is a complete failure.

So we have 'tons' of computing power under our keyboards (or behind your screen or under you, depending on what sorta computer you're using :-P), lots of telescopes, super thin displays and nuclear technology at hand, so common people might think of the human race as 'advanced'; but the major question is, to whom are we comparing ourselves to? Our neighboring species, cats and dogs or relatives in the jungle (chimpanzees and gorillas)?

Without any extraterrestrial reference we cant classify ourselves in advancement in technology; the current issue with us is that there is no good competition on earth for us (for some debatable reasons), so how do we rate the success of humanity?

The rating can be done on basis of what have we done till date to earth, how have we managed ourselves, how have we managed our population on earth and how have we managed the eco systems (not by merely the apparent advancements that we see everyday), and rating from these factors, I come to one conclusions – humanity is a complete failure, we were born on earth (point is we live in earth as of the current time) and we'll probably die here someday unless something 'magical' happens. So let's see how -

What we think is the best is not the best.

We think that feeding the poor is good, democracy is good, not slaughtering animals is good, Buying Microsoft products is nothing bad, and living under a leader is good... just to list a few examples; but is it actually good?... if you think so why do you think it's the best possible way around? I've explained all this in the headings that come under.

Most humans are governed mostly by emotions (I'm talking about major decisions here) and less by mind which's not productive as a leader, as a decision makers, if you go by the heart it'll just be like random decisions taken on basis of a single person's opinion.

In general life you can see, people or organizations who make a successful living will decide things using their mind more than heart (at least when it comes to work) so in general it can be said, using mind more than heart is more productive... and that is what most humans don't do (including me, partially).

Take an example of Mr. Bill Gates... this guy has successfully sold crap to the people and is now forcing them to use it.. and most people don't have a problem at all. By simply pioneering an eye candy this guy convinced people to drop the reliable OS/2 in favor of an unreliable shiny piecea crap (Windoze)... so was this decision his opinion or logical thinking? It was his logical thinking, this guy realized that people are utterly fools.. all they see is eye candy and what not recedes beneath, as a result he made such an OS to ensure that programs made for it will only run in it, and proprietary file formats made by Microsoft products are only officially supported by MS products which only run on Windows... which is again a MS product, he knows that people don't understand or care about anything else other than eye candy and irrelevant conveniences, as a result the code quality is horrible and Mr. Bill doesn't care about spending enough to improve the same, why should he care about it, do the people care about it...? will it increase their sales...? No it will not. So no use spending money on code quality, instead let people buy rubbish proprietary crap like 'antivirus' 'firewalls' (which's again a way to rob people), upgrade their hardware every year to compensate for the horrible code quality developed over they years and buy bugfixes every year (Windows Vista to Windows 7); and people STILL don't realize they are not only doing bad to themselves by using Windows, but to the whole human race, it's a Monique under Bill Gates. Mr. Bill knows that even if he does good to the people they will not realize... they are too foolish to realize, they are not governed by the mind.

So, in the above example I've generated a contrast between a single individual who appears to be governed more by mind and the 89% of the remaining computer users (who use Windows) who are governed by heart... people think there's no harm using windows, just cause they 'feel' that way but Mr. Bill knows this fact (and doesn't 'feel' it) that if he increases the code quality, it'll only do harm to the company, and the people wont even realize increasing the code quality is good for them. This is just a rough example, there much more to the picture, and not complete Mr. Bill's fault. By this we get the fact that what people 'feel' as a good thing might not be good to them at all.

We can see a real life example off this, people will support these following opinions of mine (under the heading) -

Fame and beliefs

Financial distribution among types of people

How are we technologically backward, using absolute reference

Population and our kindness -

This point is a subset of the above.

Most of us love to feed the poor, we feel 'mercy' on them. We feel the fact that while we are enjoying, partying, eating lavish food, they are starving... and on the verge of death cause of the same. As a result we donate, celebs raise money and donate 'for the poor'.

But people haven't realize that feeding the poor is not the solution to the source of the problem – no one even has an opinion on this, all they do is feel the mercy and donate and what the authorities do is is buy food off it and distribute it among the poor... that's about it. No effort in solving the source of the problem; ok so, these social science people claim that the solution of the problem is to make the rich poor (in an ironical sense, we all know what it means); however this decision is again governed by human feelings and emotions – people are too damn governed by emotions to state or conclude the fact that most poor people are poor cause of their own fault and the solution is more than just feeding them endlessly.

For anyone sensible, breeding is a thing to do when -

1. You have enough money
2. You have enough time
3. You're responsible and mature enough.

This is what the poor people don't realize, and we feel mercy on that lady who got fucked twice on the streets, having 2 kids and not a single home (roaming on the streets of certain countries of Africa and south east Asia)... she doesn't deserved to be fed! She deserves to be imprisoned to ensure that she doesn't get fucked again and make a thousand kids which the pity-pity people will feed again to ensure she makes a thousand more! What I say here, is let her beg and starve and make her realize her fault rather than feeding the feeling of breeding. Of course, if she was raped, or has a kid for some other forced reasons, it's not her fault.

Breeding should not be a human right... it's a liability there's no such solid rule made as a result the human population is way is excess for even the most noble intellectual individual to manage, leave alone the elected democratic leaders who got chosen by the same herd feeding the poor... what else do you expect some divine 'democratic leader' to come up and explain the fact that what we humans 'feel' as right is necessarily not?

And what are the response of the socilists? Lots of names and theories made by more over emotional people blaming the rich and often themselves for what has been done to the poor. They give no facts (and if they do, I'll modify my post and place the new opinion).

And this doesn't have to do much with corruption. If the people of a country are not getting enough finances to raise kids, they should not, they should revolt against the government, kill the corruption and when they are having a stable state, then they should start a family. Now don't tell me it's their plan to first increase the population and when they all multiply, they protest together to make a larger impact.

As a result, as of the current time, and given the stone age technology we have (how efficient is the average IC or jet engine for example?) the human population is way in excess... where it should have been a millions, and considering the advancement in technology, it should have been at most a single billion but it's in the order of billions.

There's not a place where humans don't reside, everyone's complaining about increasing food and land prices but as I expect from the stupid commoners and they haven't realize yet and will never realize the source of all the problem is population... which we can control using economics (one of the few successful things we have made). Now you might say without enough humans around, how will the technology grow? Finally with increasing human population, the number of intelligent or talented people will increase. If we look at this point of view, by the current population, today technology needed to be 10000 times more advanced than what's it's now... we're growing as if we reside on the whole solar system and our technology is no where close to doing that for 50 centuries from now. However I don't blame this technological backwardness to be the cause of excessive; I tend to think we only reap a fraction of the total potential of humanity as a result we're seeing these days.

To reap the potential of humanity, the system should be good (currently, it's bad, I've explained that later), businesses should think about the people apart from money (cause only businesses implement ideas) and lastly mindless breeding should be banned cause if the right person is born in the wrong place (a poor society) he'll only be a weight on earth.

Of course people who were made poor cause of some other reason like a disaster, or very bad malpractices by politicians (that is had kids before hand) are out of this list.

Fame and beliefs -

The human population is full of ideas, we have people who have fabulous thoughts, opinions and ideas; an ideal social system of a country or organization should be designed to take up each of these ideas, analyze them and put them in action.

But that apparently doesn't happen. If plane Jane comes up with an idea X and sets up an opinion among people about it, it'll probably be ignored, but if a celebrity comes up with the identical idea... or actually an idea which's not better than Jane's, it'll be thought about and considered instantaneously.

I call this human stupidity. People should realize that people who are famous or rich are not gods and don't spit out the best possible ideas and opinions, so no need to quote them or rub on it as if they where spells from god. Unless someone expertises in a field and talking about it the same, there's no need to think that the things that he/she speaks about IS the best or great opinion.

Let's take an example.. whatever the things I say here will be ignored and never be read, although it's something we should all consider. Had I been a superstar, they would have taken all this seriously and many of them would have really put them in practice rather than criticizing (a thing which's never going to happen)... when it comes to famous people, the listeners don't even have guts to criticize.

Democracy/Leadership theory -

We live in a society which's usually modeled as a herd with a single leader which the herd should follow at least for some period of time, this appears to be 'naturally' the best way (again a feeling), but it is really not. This is partially a Monique with an exception by which an apparently 'intelligent' person (from the herd) has the rights to slip aways from the herd to make himself a leader with a bunch of people with similar opinion and then he'll start gathering a crowd and make a thing similar to a 'country', something which's a manifestation of how stupid human beings are and what a failure humanity is.

Continuing with this leadership theory, question is, why is this 'partially a Monique system'? Whatever the leader things as right he will command and do, apparently if the action has some major flaw in it which the common people are not intellectual enough to understand and only a small portion revolts, it will be actually ignored and the useful opinion will go waisted unless some big celeb revolts (see Fame and beliefs subtopic) which's just a matter of probability. If the people have the rights to choose their leaders we call it democracy which adds up to the series of failure. Consider the common foolish people which are mostly incapable of becoming the leader themselves vote a person 'according to their opinion'.. which's clearly trash since they they don't have any intelligence at all. How are people with low intelligence suppose to choose which person will be the best as leader... the leaders can simply conveniences them to believe they are here to help them by seconding their stupid opinion and making hypothetical false promises of reducing tax and doubling the economy which the stupid commoners appear to believe (finally why are they commoners?... why ain't they leaders convincing the commoners? That's cause they are stupid... they don't have enough intelligence to see what's right and wrong.). This is similar to what Bill Gates did. People want that leader to put under action their opinion and THER opinion is trash which'll finally do bad to the whole of earth.

In democracy the leaders might favor people on bases of supporting their religion a major advantage where people of one religion form the larger majority (like Nepal). So the opinion of the common religious fools will overshadow the opinion of the 0.5% sensible, no doubt the leader chosen will either be -

1. Too foolish
2. Too selfish.

Let's take an example... people will vote for the person who claims to do favors to them. So we take a crowd of judges, cops and prisoners and ask them to vote about 'Should the current prisoners be free?'. Since prisoners are the much greater majority, the result of the voting will be a 'yes'.

In the real world, most people are selfish, when they vote, they only care about their advantage and not what problems will this advantage cause to others.

Furthermore to vote for the right candidate you don't need to see what they are doing now, or what they claim to do, you gotta see the background, the history of the individual and decide on if he's really capable of doing the job. And 90% of the population doesn't care about this, they don't even have enough intellect to understand his aspects, leave alone the fact of lower intelligence of the masses, no one even has time to do this, as a result most of the votes are either random or just stupid opinion.

This is what we call democracy and the leadership theory "Let the majority stupid rule" and "You do what I say, even if it's stupid" respectively.

Cause of this we have the concept of countries which I define as a group of people with certain leaders and defined territory where they live... a ridiculously stupid and unproductive concept. A reason for existence of a country is the fact that humans are competitive, they are designed to fight competition off, since there is no real competition to humans, we fight among ourselves. So if an extraterrestrial species decides to capture earth, and the whole world considers this as a real and major issue, there's no scope of doubt that the whole human population will unite and the concept of the countries will be lost unless the threat is gone. Finally this is the definition of country I give -

"Groups of people separated by areas and leaders thinking only about their own good and possible harming other groups for their own benefit."

Wild life conservation -

Considering Population and our kindness section, we can have either 2 things given a state of technology – Adequate wildlife or excess of human population. 90% of people receding on earth want both however.

Yeah it is possible but that's considering we are 50,000 times more advanced than what we are now. Unlike each animal or tree born on earth each human born will consume 50 billion times more resources and cause infinitely more harm to the wild life looking at the current state of technology we are in.

So if you're a wildlife conservationist and handing out hand bills to save the tiger, plant more trees or support our conservation efforts, it's better to drop them off altogether and start convince people to stop making babies and support more R&D, and when the technology has grown advanced enough, THEN make babies. Doing this will aid all your conservation efforts.

Furthermore, it's originally not human to save, or conserve any other species. We survived on earth cause we had cut down trees, killed animals for food and won over them when it came to competition for all – land, food and luxuries. We are so successful that we are actually keeping them as pets... just for fun, and we even have mercy on them, we have mercy on the difficulties they are facing cause of the insane amount of human population or actually cause of our success. So this 'mercy' part comes cause we are too damn successful and not cause these things are build into us... originally we're only meant to be compassionate about other humans... to aid our complex social structures, nothing else; care for other animals is just a side affect.

Limits of our management skills -

It can be considered that at the current state of time, the human population is so damn in excess that any average individual or even groups of average individuals will not be able to manage it; we need someone extra ordinary. It's out off the bounds for an average team of human being to manage such a large population. Thanks to democracy, the handful of good and super intelligent human beings will never be elected following the thinking of the average.

Even if the suffice do get selected for the purpose, it will still be very difficulties for them to manage the majority fools of the human population. These common people don't understand anything, and even if they feel the slightest inconvenience they make a mob and revolt... none of them have understanding about whats going on inside, what are the challenges faced by the leaders etc... leave alone advising solutions.

Less intelligence -

Ok, so I've been talking a lot about common people are fools, but are they really fools?

If the average population was actually intelligent, the average would have been capable enough to vote or realize that the leadership system is crap for this large amount of population and our small planet earth wouldn't have been divided into 100s of countries. If human population was intelligent enough an average set of individuals would have been good enough to manage the human population, but apparently that's not possible.

Another proof of lower human intelligence is the fact that people cant predict the future given certain facts... like global warming (which's probably a myth), people have been told the temperature thing, it's consequences and even the severity but are they talking care of it?... yeah 1% population does. They don't realize the fact that if they don't stop driving 4 seater cars alone or quit IC engines and adopt it's electric variants, to save earth, but they neither care, nor realize the severity of this. What's more important is the 'manufacturing cost' of the vehicle... that is financial things take presidency over the future of earth no one can realize the real danger.

I say IC engines should be banned at least on roads within a period of 5 years, if that sounds too hard, new IC vehicle should be banned for sale at least. I haven't even mentioned flight which's the most inefficient model of transport around (with 10% efficiency I guess? Remember Newton's third law and KE, momentum relation?). Even with an electric motor there's nothing you can do much to improve the efficiency of a flight.

Most human being are governed by an apprehension that nothing can harm the human population major – we're the most successful of all creatures, there're no rivals absolutely. What a common human's mind cant see is that the rival is not in form a creature, but are fight for resources, various geological and cosmic interferences that will wipe us someday – which'll be another day when we'll be thinking the human population is safe and nothing can harm it.

Invisible enemies will never be realized except by a few scientists who'll be suppressed by the stupid government (which's elected by the stupid people following democracy) to maintain the 'economy' of the nation, or whatsoever reason. The human population is itself the biggest enemy of the species and we've failed to realize that.

Humans become fans of mostly entertainers, or the most insignificant people on earth; as a result they are rich, whereas scientists, by the most important personals neither have the money nor the right. This has been explained below.

Financial distribution among types of people -

Let's see who get's paid most (1 to 3) -

1. Businessmen
2. Entertainers
3. Working class people
   1. Scientists.

There's no scope of doubt that the entertainers are the most insignificant people on the planet, and yet they are one of the most paid. People recognize them as 'gods' as so they are taken as brand ambassadors and become millionaires soon.

On the other hand, the scientists appear to be insignificant... for all the good they do to the world, and for which humanity has risen to such heights are ignored and given a salary (although it is high, but it's comparatively very low).

It appears impossible to solve this issue, since people simply can't become fans of scientists (they are so uncool), but the government can help. They can make a rule by which a minimum of 50% of the revenues generated by a company using the R&D of a scientist or a team has to be paid to them. This will although directly affect the businessmen and indirectly the entertainers, but at least the most significant people will get paid what they did for. Additional the utility patent term should be extended to 30 years.

The patent laws states that the term of 20 years is to ensure that the inventor keeps on working rather than just invent one thing and relax for a life time. This is indeed true, the solution to this will be extension of 5 years on all previous patents if and only if a new patent has been filed.

Our method of discussion is still crappy –

Discussion is one of the few things which make humans very different – the huge vocabulary, the brain and patience to sit and listen to each other for hours on end; but unfortunately I find the trivial debating method nothing but a waist of time for major and controversial decisions.

If you carefully listen to a serious debate; effectively only 4 things happen most of the time -

1. People repeats their statements again and again cause the other party fails to understand or listen; as a result he asks or prompts the answer again and again.
2. A lot of solid points are completely forgotten.
3. They cut each others sentences, as a result the 2 never understand each other.
4. Some people forget a few points since you need to respond fast to people – it becomes a type of game on who responds faster.

And the 3 problems to these are -

5. There's lack of depth in the discussion; as we go deeper we keep forgetting other factors in the discussion making the situation complex.
6. What people said is also forgotten unless things are recorded; and even if they are, it's very difficult to track the discussion cause it's usually not structured.
7. Oral discussion can't be structured.
8. You physically have to go and dedicate your complete time discussing; and if the discussion gets postponed many times (cause the people are asking for time); the discussion gets delayed by an extreme amount.

As of the current time, none of the above problems have been addressed and that's cause we're still using trivial techniques to commence our debates – just talking.

Conclusion -

We're nothing but a bunch of monkeys, finally they are our ancestors.

Solution to all this -

Be follower of logic.

And our objective should be -

1. Everyone on earth should be happy.
2. Wildlife should be conserved.
3. Future should be good (safety from the invisible enemies).
4. Humanity should expand (not on earth).

By following logic we ought to do things which apparently people don't like and the people who don't like it will be welcomed in the discussion and ultimately convinced that this was the right decision.

The backbone of what should be done and what should not should be decided in discussions... this's where things should start, thus we should have a solid discussion platform to form laws. This will be as such -

All discussion will be in textual form and in online forums, this way we solve 3, 4, 6 and 8 with a new problem – discussion is slow, but it's better (and faster) than postponing.

Why this's faster is cause discussion can commence day and night, when someone wants time to gather statistics or just need a break, he can simply leave for any amount of time and come back when he wants to and catch up with the discussion since it's completely archived and easy to track, thus giving him extreme flexibility and not ruining his whole day – people can even do this part time as a result lots of important (and might be intelligent) people who'd otherwise not have participated start participating. Also, for the same reason, this'll give people time to think (4)
As of point 3, since this's a written discussion, they can't interrupt. Everyone can write completely and till his/her complete satisfaction.

Anyone from the public can start a thread in this forum to change or make a law.

The various things that this person wants to state (as to why the law should exist, the current problems etc...) will be broken down into small points which will be discussed independently. These individual points will be responded to by people to spark a discussion.

e.g. I want discussion on abolishment of software patents, I'll place the following points (just for e.g.) -

Topic – Software patents should be more limited.

1. ….
2. Patents have a history of supporting only large companies which try to eat up small companies or individuals making software
3. Using patents large companies try to abolish or put pressure on non-profit organizations or people making opensourced software, thus failing the point of patents (good of the people).
4. ….

To discuss, someone may respond -

1. ….
   
2. Patents have a history of supporting only large companies which try to eat up small companies or individuals making software
3. Using patents large companies try to abolish or put pressure on non-profit organizations or people making opensourced software, thus failing the point of patents (good of the people).
   
4. ….

Just in case there's another aspect arising from a point (numbered 2), a new point can be made off it (numbered 5). If this new point is such that the previous point (from which it arises from) depends on it, point 2 may be suspended unless point 5 is resolved and there's a definitive conclusion on it.

This will form the very basic concept of how discussions should be proceeded and will clearly remove issues 1, 2, 7 and 5 of the classical discussion methods.

As I stated, everyone from the public can participate in this discussion, but they have to first pass a test by which they will state what they want to discuss about. If it has been found that his point has not been discussed before he'll be allowed in the discussion permanently (i.e. next time he wont be needing a permission unless he posts something already previously discussed).

If this restriction is not applied there'll be a flood of posts.

Other small time problems exists which have solutions to e.g. no personal attacks etc...

Best of all there'll be no political party system which's a complete failure since all that political parties do is favor each other and disfavor others in a hypocrite way.

This system will be used to make decisions also; swift, time sensitive decisions will be made by a single authority and after discussion it might be changed.

I tend to think, if we follow this system the world will change. The commoners will see why they are wrong and no one will be unsatisfied since they can always discuss. No rallies or mobs or monopolies. People will be under control. There'll be no elections, the immediate leader (for swift decisions) will be chosen on bases of how accurately he made decisions in the past.