Sunday, 12 August 2012

Things we don't need

I really detest it when people are 'proud' of their country. A country is just a land mass cordoned off by humans for their exclusive use. Being proud of your country is pretty close to nepotism, or even racism, in my book, since you're inherently favouring people of your 'kin' over others, for next to no reason at all. Every country has geniuses and great artists and bla bla bla you know the drill. Nothing separates any country from another except silly human memes. Those silly human memes include languages and laws, by the way. See below for those.

More than one language
It is absolutely unnecessary for human beings to have more than one language, except for of course, sign language for the hearing impaired. It's not anyone's fault for this of course, but procrastinating and not doing anything about it, or WORSE KEEPING YOUR LANGUAGE BECAUSE OF SOME STUPID NOTION ABOUT COUNTRY OR CULTURE (meaningless) is not a good thing at all. Culture by the way, is not entirely a bad thing if it makes people happy, but doing things for the sake of it is absolutely stupid. I could create a culture right now from nothing and it would be no more meaningful than your culture developed over thousands of years. Fighting to protect culture is not something we should invest time in, and should not be something that causes hatred and divides the human race.

You may say that it is an almost impossible task to unite people in language, but the thing is, a lot of even small efforts can have large impacts. Besides, we don't even know if it is a hard task yet, BECAUSE NO GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO THIS. If every government agreed to do this, then in a few generations everyone would have the same language, I am sure of this.

Individual governments
Individual governments allow for separation of people and foster hatred. World government, as totalitarian and scary as that sounds, would be a step forward in uniting people together, so long as (a it has a constitution of rational humanitarian laws guaranteed for all divisions (there do need to be divisions, otherwise we would need to refer to locations by co-ordinates). What I am talking about is basically a souped-up UN. Separate places may have SLIGHTLY different laws, let's say, but since immigration is absolutely unrestricted, and no one can create crazy anti-human rights laws due to the constitution, things work out just as they did before except people are a lot more sane, and a lot less divided. (I'd mention that one law should be 'no reproduction', but baby steps, people, baby steps). This bit is pretty much open to debate, because I'm not too sure of it myself. I'm not sure there's actually a point in governments making new laws unless some new development in technology calls for it - as soon as you make sure there's enough to protect humans from each other and still allows them all the freedom they can get their grubby little hands on (joking), there isn't much left to do that isn't bullshitting about the place.

If there is no difference between humans of one country and humans of another country, then there is no reason to restrict immigration. Nothing makes foreigners different from natives, except for dangerous memes and the ever-present in-group bias. What would be best for humanity would be for that same "In-group" mentality to be harnessed so that instead of a tribe or a town or a country being the 'group', instead the group is humans themselves. And then we can extend that group further, into animals and alien species. Until we all die out from refusing to breeding. Heartwarming.


  1. I'm guessing you aren't a fan of the Olympics...?

  2. Best post ever, if I can say that. Really, really good. The part with the countries nailed to me. Only human silliness and memes at the end of the day.

  3. Do you have vast reformations and cunning annihilations to make this crooked universe straight and sound? :-)

  4. You do realize that heterogeneity in culture is not only an inevitable result of human psychology, but healthier for mankind as a whole right? If we had one culture, one people, regardless of what other elements you try to had, you're going to have one world view and nothing to go against it. Look at extremely homogenous populations such as Japan, and look at how badly the quality of life is for the average worker. Ignore the bullshit about health, look at the working conditions, the result of conformity (which a one culture, one people philosophy is going to use or force if it is going to survive), and how much corruption there exists because of the one-ness of its people. Look at the treatment of rape victims, homosexuals, and 'neet' culture for how a homogeneous society can isolate and repress entire segments of its population without anyone noticing.

    Really, as a homosexual, what would my rights be in this society? I will automatically prevent the group from pulling further because I exist to a sub-society, regardless if I can be otherwise productive, I am an 'other' and you defined that otherness, regardless of the cause or its utility, must be stamped out.

    As you have defined it, who should lead this crusade for unity? Should it be China, who has the largest population and its industrial strength, should it be the United States, because of its total military strength and its already global involvement in most affairs? Should this language be created, should we make it English? Unless this is all bullshit, since ultimately all I can add to your bullshit is further bullshit, you're not only talking about the creation of a 1984 state, you are wishing that it suceeds in destroying the individual! The entire point of 1984 is that the state, despite its strength and omnipresence, is weak and fracturing. The state of 1984 may appear perpetual to the individual, because that is what it needs to survive, but it is likely to collapse soon, it is ALWAYS going to collapse soon because the Soviet Union was a failed state that was kept alive through conformity.

    With your misguided attempt to secure some sort of world unity (if you studies your history, surprise surprise, nationalism began as a utopian worldview designed to ensure global unity, as was marxism, and you can see how quickly both philosophies were used as political tools for the powers that be), solidarity cannot exist, because there is nothing for it to be based on. There is only "we" there is no further humanity beyond that.

    The fact you would call for the destruction of individual cultures and language, all for the sake of a very juvenile understanding of world affairs, only speaks that you have not been educated in the ways of the world and are likely a white, middle-class straight male who feels that they have some secret understanding of the world. You don't, no one does, the world is far too big of a beast to shackle, and all attempts to create greater unity has either failed miserably or led to the complete disenfranchisement of a large portion of the population.

    Now truly, is the Republic of Plato meant to be a utopia or dystopia? Regardless of what your answer is, remember, it is a thought experiment, Plato doesn't want you to agree to disagree, he wants to question your reason.

    1. I lost my massive comment going in depth to respond to you, so I'll try to do this in bullet point form. Sorry that it won't be as good.

      -Haha I'm bisexual actually but you got the rest right
      -I don't see how homogeneity could lead to bad results when the constitution guarantees human rights and is optimised to minimise human suffering. Besides, people can keep their culture if they like. Heterogeneous enough for you? I said this in the post too by the way. Tsk tsk.
      -I don't see how you automatically become oppressed in my society even though there are laws against that. I'm not for eliminating individuality. Countries do not create individuals as you seem to think, individuals are individuals by genes/environment.
      -All countries as one lead the charge, Lojban is preferred language as it incorporates the major languages into its vocabulary.
      -Stop strawmanning me please, I didn't say anything about a totalitarian state being created. Why did you comment if all you're going to do is RAGE at me instead of actually addressing the points? I don't mind being wrong. I'll change my views if I can see that they are wrong.
      -Why do you think that language is sacred? It isn't. It's clunky and it puts barriers between people.
      -I agree that it'd probably go wrong. I don't have a lot of faith that humans will actually do this, and if they do, they will mess it up due to selfishness/irrationality.

      I'm quite glad you commented, because up till now I've only had nice commenters. Change is good! I don't really feel insulted or anything by this so don't worry if you look back on it and regret it, since it didn't do much to me anyway. Blame it on the anger-nullifying medication. I look forward to your next comment, if there is one.

    2. Since you seem to be unable to understand cause and effect, you are overlooking that you are asking for a totalitarian state in order to enact these changes, since by definition, you need a powerful state to enact all these global reforms, and this state can't do this if there is resistence. As homosexuality, or bisexuality, are not useful to the state, they will be repressed through genetics or simply oppressed.

      But you're asking that people at once, accept a homogenous state and culture, and at the same time are given an option to reject it. This is a key element of 1984 of how the proles are kept in line: they are given the illusion of their own culture, but in reality their culture is carefully monitored and manipulated by the powers that be.

      I'm sorry, but its not a matter of selfishness or irrationality, since not only is your dream state a product of this, it will exist by eliminating the individual's capacity to hold -any- feelings. Read the book "We" for what this will do, since you probably aren't going to read the Russian literature that inspired Orwell, I'll sum it up for you: When the state eliminates individuality, by controlling their genetics and environment, which your state will do as a matter of course, any deviation is a threat.

      So your state will need to collapse for mankind to ever have a utopia, since you just asked for a perpetual dystopia, and since you view is based on mankind's inability to function without outside forces acting upon it.

      Also you're trying to take the passive-aggressive way out from my arguments, and merely repeated your view. That isn't how you defeat my argument, my argument is defeated by being proven wrong, which you can't do with a simple repeat of your view. Its simply irrational.

      Understand this, I have yet to see a single leader that wishes for a strong-state philosophy that also views mankind as weak that hasn't violated human rights.

    3. I can take insults but I really can't respond to this. Strawmanning is boring. Point out things I have actually said that are wrong instead of making up new ones. And I thought I could learn from you :)

      Here's a hint: people will like you more if you are nicer to them.

  5. first, this is really me, despite the space between the L and R in my name. Updated to Google Plus. eh.

    Anyway, I appreciate the basic sentiment about not wanting to divide people, elevating their people above others, but I can't quite agree with your comments about keeping one's language, and such.

    Basic Reason: Languages can, but not necessarily, influence how people think - which admittedly can be either a good or bad thing. With different influences comes different perspectives. With different perspectives comes an easier ability to grasp subtle but important truths that other societies can all too easily overlook. With new approaches to the truth comes new ideas that generate new findings in science, philosophy, the arts, music, etc. that create new things that people find worthwhile - which in turn can lead to new discoveries and innovations, new products, new services. This in turn makes our societies both wealthier and more able to meet new challenges.

    1. Hmmmmm. Are you sure the has been experimentally verified yet? If it has and I haven't read enough about it, then I'd agree with you. I guess our only hope in that case would be for a Star Trek-like translation device. Or downloadable languages into our brains through augmented memory with technology? The language barrier DOES need to be overcome.

  6. You make some great points.