> 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.

This invokes an interesting question... deserving of a separate thread...

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> 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.

Wait a second.  Two things:

1: Isn't each nation a subset of humanity?  First, a thought experiment: Suppose that the United States was being offered by extraterrestrials to be given technology to wipe away all disease, pollution, hunger, and allow travel and colonization of the planets and other solar systems.  However, in exchange, the US would allow said aliens to abduct all non-US citizens, to be used either for enslavement, food, execution, etc., by the aliens.

Long term, the decision would allow humanity (meaning the human species) to overcome its greatest extinction threats.  However, it sacrifices a good amount of the human population in the process.

2: Assuming you're right, doesn't your last argument only mean that civilization hasn't had a chance to prove itself yet?  No, there has not been a global democracy yet.  However, globalization is increasingly integrating the world, both economically and politically.  By your last argument, doesn't it mean that if we give civilization time to develop and globalize, its odds of serving humanity will thus increase?

@ Zarf and Avo

"Long term, the decision would allow humanity (meaning the human species) to overcome its greatest extinction threats.  However, it sacrifices a good amount of the human population in the process."

But this is to assume 'humanity' necessarily equates 'species'.  It does not.

Let's say there were a virus which caused all subsequent generations to ours to carry a genetic mutation that made their offspring 100% prone to becoming zombies when reaching the age of 30.  These subsequent generations of humans are deemed to be simply nonviable. The solution is to inoculate those remaining few who have not yet been effected by the virus (only about 250 people: hunter-gatherer types living in a remote area of Papa New Guinea) and then to wipe out all other humans on Earth.  In this case, the 'species' will be preserved, but both 'humanity' and 'civilization' will be essentially destroyed.  'Species' and 'humanity' are thus quite different concepts, Zarf.

Now, I'd like to address what Avo said here:

"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"

I understand that you are trying to show that only a segment of the human population needs to be served by civilization in order for their respective interests to coincide, but what I am also implying in the example above is that humanity is the entire human race, every human individual, as a whole, not merely a few humans acting as a continuation of the species, and thus for 'civilization' to serve 'humanity' it needs to serve ALL of us, everywhere, and not merely the interests of a few necessary to continue the procreation of the 'species'.

@Avo

"basically, using your logic, its impossible to serve humanity, because two people just need contradictory goals and then its impossible to serve both of them."

I didn't say it is impossible.  Humanity (human beings as a whole, rather than the species) could, perhaps, be served by civilization.  But there would have to be some fundamental changes to civilization in order for this to happen.

For the moment, civilization doesn't even serve the interests of the species, let alone the interests of humanity.  We are in no way prepared to have our species carry on after an extinction level asteroid impact on Earth, as we do not yet have viable colonies on other planets.  As for civilization serving humanity, over a third of the human population is malnourished / starving.  These two facts alone are enough for us to plainly see that civilization is an utter failure in its mandate to serve the interests of the species and humanity as a whole.

"
you didn't say it was impossible, but the requirements you made, make it impossible. you cant serve every human...  yes, we dont have colonies on other planets, to carry on the race if an extinction level asteroid impacts the earth, but we have the tools and technology where it is likely we would see such an asteroid long enough ahead of time where we could change its trajectory enough to miss the earth and save humanity; enough so where an asteroid hitting the earth is one of the most unlikely ways for humanity to become extinct.  over a third of the human population is malnourished/starving? well, how much was malnourished/starving 1000 years ago? civilization has cleary significantly reduced the percentage an impressive amount in relatively little time..."

We still have a long way to go.  If I were an member of a group of aliens exploring the universe seeking to interact with other sentient beings and welcome the 'function' sentient civilizations into an inter-galactic Star-Trek-like federation of civilizations, and I came across humanity here in Earth in our day and age, I would steer clear of us entirely.

Most of humanity is suffering various hardships  and injustice needlessly, and our species on the brink of doom.  Obviously, civilization is dysfunctional.  We have no plan B let alone plan A. 

It's as if we are stumbling along aimlessly in the dark wearing what we think are cool sunglasses.  Its utterly ridiculous.

depends which Trek

TOS:  Kirk would nuke respect for humanity into them

TNG:  Picard would talk respect for humanity into them.  When he's taken prisoner, Riker would nuke respect into them.

DS9: humanity will be enslaved until God nukes respect itno them

VOY: We will sacrifice logic for huggles until aliens are forced to confront the neurotic bases for their disrespect, and respect us by default.

ENT: They will respect our enormous breasts.