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 -
You have enough money
You have enough time
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 -
Too foolish
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) -
Businessmen
Entertainers
Working
class people
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 -
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.
A lot of solid
points are completely forgotten.
They cut each
others sentences, as a result the 2 never understand each other.
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 -
There's lack of
depth in the discussion; as we go deeper we keep forgetting other
factors in the discussion making the situation complex.
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.
Oral discussion
can't be structured.
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 -
Everyone on earth should be happy.
Wildlife should be conserved.
Future should be good (safety from the
invisible enemies).
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.
….
Patents have a history of supporting only
large companies which try to eat up small companies or individuals
making software
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).
….
To discuss, someone may respond -
….
Patents have a history of supporting only
large companies which try to eat up small companies or individuals
making software
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).
….
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.
