Comment

soumerd_retardataire@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

That’s a topic i love and i don’t often have the possibility to see someone not thinking it is possible(, i’ve never met someone arguing that it is not desirable).
If you pointed at our arrogant/selfish desire to be “on top” of the other, then my answer would be to explain why everyone would gain and be more powerful if we’re united, and it must be lonely at the top, with only one culture, if we have friendly countries who are really different in many domain then it’s better to be friends with equals, we have to think of infallible measures against treason but that’s not impossible.

source

Sort:hotnew top

DmMacniel@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
So we turn humanity into the Borg Collective? Cool cool.

source
- soumerd_retardataire@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  We can harmoniously be united in diversity ;
  
  We can be united without diversity ;
  
  Or we can be disunited in diversity.
  
  I obviously choose the first option, you’ll probably agree, but our western leaders somehow prefer the second one, and they’re the ones with the power to improve things.
  
  source
  - DmMacniel@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    We can harmoniously be united in diversity ;
    
    explain how that would work? How can harmony work on a planet wide scale? Not everyone share the same values and even disapprove of others that have other values.
    
    source
    soumerd_retardataire@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Thanks for asking !
    
    I’ll take more time tomorrow to answer in more depth(, even if only for me), but for now i can quickly say that this set of rules/conditions won’t be defined by a single person(, much less myself), as i see it it would take at least 25 years to build, and 5 years before the first experimentations. It’d be, after all, one of the most important thing that humanity could do.
    This disapproval of other values can easily be solved through propaganda, we naturally aspire to peace and thinking that our side is better than the other doesn’t imply we need to wage war against the “inferior ideologies”, even for their own good, we should aim to change them only through the proximity of our example(, if they accept such proximity).
    An obstacle i can see is our leaders, they’ll think that they have to act for more supremacy while they still have time, and may honestly believe that the pax americana is desirable, or at least preferable to the alternative of an “anarchic” world. They won’t immediately believe that we could make rules that can’t be broken, such that “showing kindess” won’t turn up against us in the end.
    Among many other goals behind the experimentation of such rules, we’ll have to think of every possible way to break these rules/conditions, and devise the most effective counter-measures ever thought of, i don’t see any other way.
    There’re certainly other problems to tackle, do you have one in mind ?
    
    source