> BiefstukFriet wrote:

> > avogadro wrote:

> > BiefstukFriet wrote:

> > EmperorHez wrote:

> correct me if im wrong but shouldnt it be NETHERLANDS NETHERLANDS NETHERLANDS ?

Holland isnt a country.

We know, don't care:p

Holland sounds better when shouting drunken lyrics. Google/ YouTube the song Viva Hollandia, try to swap Holland with NL, it dos not work:p

why don't you just change the name of your country then?

Just for football? Besides, there are several  provinces besides North-and South Holland whom would not like the change.

JUST FOOTBALL???!!!!!!!!!

megan fox looks like a dumb teenage skank. unable to hold a intelligent conversation and probably disease ridden... i wouldn't touch her with a 10ft pole.

"In theory democracy in its purest form would serve the best interests of the population, yes.  But are any of the nations on Earth in reality purely 'democratic nations'?  I think not.  Ancient Greece was as close as we've ever seen of pure democracy at work.  But even then most of the population was without the right to vote.  Ancient Grecian politics could be more accurately described as democratic elitism.  And we all know what the ancient Grecian elites did to Socrates.  Lastly, there has never been a world democracy governing all of humanity.  Therefore, because democracy has never really functioned to serve the best interests of humanity, I don't think we can say that civilization has ever really served the best interests of humanity.  Surely, it has happened that the interests of civilization and humanity have coincided, but for the most part, civilization has been self-serving."

i disagree... any democratic nation has government that is given power by being elected inorder to represent their best interests; why have a democratic nation instead of a dictatorship? the idea was to have the government serve its population, all democratic government's were formed to serve their populations aka humanity. it is true that civilizations are not perfect and that officials are often corrupt; but the fact that the officials are corrupt wouldn't change the government's job in the society, it just means that elected officials often act against civilization and humanity.  also, i dont think you can claim that just because a government or series of governments don't have jurisdiction over all of humanity, that they can't serve the best interests of humanity in general.

the world cup is a sort of war... it invokes patriotism, and pride with little waste being formed. unfortunately it doesn't prepare us at all to deal with threats to our civilization or motivate the vast majority of us to become more productive.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

>
This brings me to some questions for you Avo,

1.  There certainly wouldn't be the perpetual war that plagues the world of 1984, but, then again, isn't perpetual war (non-nuclear war, that is) good for civilization? 

2.  On the other hand, in the Seinfeld universe, people would have functional autonomy over their lives, good relationships with friends and family, but how does this help civilization exactly? 

3.  Lastly, we have to admit that the real world is not like 1984 nor Seinfeld.  They are simply different perspectives, or different camera angles on our world.  The question is, which is more wide-angled?  Or which captures the quintessential qualities of our world more accurately or more completely?

1. War's have positive and negative effects on situations, certain wars weighing heavier in the positives and others weighing heavier in the negatives. ideally you would want a war that would maximize competition and patriotism while minimizing the cost of the war. So you would get maximum motivation, productivity, technological innovation, and be prepared for future threats to the civilization; while minimizing waste

2. well, to help civilization, you have to determine a goal civilization has. and then you determine a goal that humanity has, and then you would be able to decide whether what i thought was true, where what is good for civilization is good for humanity. I would argue that in democratic nation's, the civilization's goal is to serve their population; so what would serve the civilization is what serves humanity.

3. 1984 was more focused towards human nature; while sienfield was more focused on society imo; i think trying to compare them with each other for completeness is comparing apples and oranges.

meh, you're getting a little old with charlize theron, she's like 35...  charlise theron of 5 years ago, sure...

megan looks like the girl next store to me, nothing special... brown hair, tanned skin, slim figure, all very normal.  her face isnt very attractive either... and she seems kinda like a skanky teenager...

i wasn't saying that a 1984 system would be good for human civiliation and bad for humanity. i was saying that if human civiliation evolved into the one in 1984; what is good for the civilization and what is good for humanity would clearly be different.

i will answer questions later, i'm busy atm unfortunately.

i think the distopia's in books are the best examples of good for civilization, bad for humanity; brave new world or 1984 for example.

they couldnt even generate the scoring chances for their goal's... they had to be handed to them...

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Not necessarily, avo.  Civilization requires a level of development, stability, and interdependence which creates unique risks.

A good modern example is disease spread.  Increasing international commerce and movement of people creates conditions which allow diseases to spread throughout the globe much quicker than they would in a non-developed world.

That may be an example of what xeno is looking for here...

if a disease wipes out the human race because of how much and how quickly people transport, then the fast transportation would have been bad for civilization and for humanity. if it doesnt and no harm comes from global transportation, then i think it would generally be good for both civilization and humanity.

> lmperial wrote:

> >
no i do not think progression (betterment) of civilization aids in the betterment of humanity, as it degrades survivability.

if betterment of civilization does not aid in the betterment of humanity, then can you still claim it is betterment of civilization? i don't think so.