Web Development

Ask something
Discussion Locked

How to solve all the world's problems

0 helpful
36 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I received an email which just consisted of this URL:

http://www.mutazilah.org

There are a lot of hyperlinks at the website, the most fundamental being:

http://www.mutazilah.org/holybook.htm#15

The author is some kind of religious nutter, but his "Bible" consists largely of rules relating to freedom of the individual. I think Max especially will relate to some of these proposed rules.

Explore the hyperlinks for some useful, and some bizarre information.

You can laugh, you can cry, but personally I found some ideas that were quite interesting.

BTW Gret and myself are currently having a ball upsetting the Christians at:

http://www.meetchristians.com

It is primarily an American fundamentalist/evangelical website, but a wide variety of views are brought forth for discussion. Protius would like it I think, and Neil perhaps also.

They have quite accepted the fact that Gret is an atheistic Jew, and appreciate her knowledge of Old Testamanet Hebrew in particular.

36 replies

by now left tr

eliminate all humans.

Before you all moan - think, it is true!
It is the WORLD'S problems, not human / mankind / womankind or peoplekind problems. The WORLD is more than just us lot.

by jdclyde

I really HAVE read papers by econuts that have claimed that we need to cut back on the population to save the earth.

If there is no population, there is no reason to have an earth, is my point of view.

After all, it really is all about me! B-)

by jardinier

And that is just the problem, isn't it. Everybody on the planet is primarily focused on what would be best for themselves.

I feel VERY STRONGLY that the world has been seriously overpopulated for quite some time already.

Fewer people equals less pollution, less demand on unrenewable resources, no need to go nuclear for domestic energy (yes it's clean and SAFE -- until something goes wrong).

I think that people who habitually scoff at "greens" are just thinking of their own lives and maybe those of their children. But what about your grandchildren and great grandchildren? What will the world be like three generations from now?

From my own perspective, Sydney is already overpopulated and there are no plans in place to slow down the population increase.

How does this affect me personally? Driving is a nightmare, even in the suburban areas. In eastern Australia we are having an extended drought and more people means greater water requirement.

My greatest personal concern on a world-wide scale is the rate at which forest is being destroyed -- especially in the Amazon area -- simply because there are too many people trying to eke a living.

by maxwell edison

Be the change you see in the world.
-- Mahatma Gandhi

The bottom line is BOTH individual rights and individual responsibility -- they cannot be separated.

Do not deny others the right to be responsible (or decide) for themselves.

Do not deny others the responsibility to be responsible for themselves.

Do not expect (or force) others to assume responsibility for yourself.

Do not expect (or force) others to assume responsibility for others.

(Note: This does not, in any way, prevent an individual from helping those that individual deems needy or worthy.)

If EVERYONE in the world conceded such rights and responsibilities, it would be a different place indeed.

(You just had to suck me in, didn't you. Julian?)

by mjwx

And don't get me wrong Max, I agree with you on the point that people should be responsible for themselves.

But it relies in people beleiving the same as you do. so those who do not believe in individual responsibility (I find that difficult to fathom too Max but they exist none the less) would have it forced upon them, denying them both freedom of choice and individual liberty (to decide for themselves). It's crappy catch 22 I know.

The second is that whist we form large co-operative organisations it will be impossible to determine let alone to assign individual responsibility. The corporation is a prime example of this, how many Enron execs are in jail. Not many as the execs all had someone else to blame or other methods to confuse it. There is no clear cut way to assign blame to a corporate or co-operative entity as it would be blatantly unfair to assign blame equally (Marxist too I believe) as the cleaner does not have the same responsibilities or benefits as the head accountant.

There's a couple of jokes that come to mind about the corporate responsibility, first "none of us are as dumb as all of us" and the second:
"Corporation, N, method of gaining individual wealth whist avoiding individual responsibility."

Now, Max don't get me wrong, I don't want to knock you down over this but a theory must be able to stand up to scrutiny. When I find a problem with one of my theories it provides me with an opportunity to improve it.

by jardinier

There are 52 subjects discussed in the document, and many/most nake a lot of sense to me. How about some feedback on these other topics?

I encourage people to list some of the topics with which they agree.

Americans should especially like #27 and #28, but might not like #25 -- just a few examples.

I think #13 contains a lot of good, common sense. #14 is interesting to say the least.

I also like #6.

Neil would like #9 -- if he shows up.

by levannah44

Julian, I'm still recovering from shock here. Having read most of the 52 subjects listed, I'll go back to them later and comment on them more fully.

But I'm completely stumped about why the fellow doesn't like people whose names begin with the letter 'E'!

There's no reason, no justification given for this one bald statement, yet he will be a friend to anyone regardless of race, religion, colour and a whole heap of other things - provided their name doesn't begin with 'E'!

Basically, much of what's listed is quite logical, and I'll comment on some of them in more depth later, but to be hung-up about someone just because their name begins with 'E' seems totally at odds with everything else this guy proposes. He's either a super nut case or a super hero.

Gret

by schuyler

Man was not created to be a "Slave"!
Nor was man created
to live in,
Wall-to-Wall
"Concrete"!

**********

The great spirit, the creator of all life,
(our father in heaven), gave only one commandment
to all of mankind.

"Listen to me! Be 'OBEDIENT' to me in everything
you think, everything you say, and in everything
you do!"

"Keep me FIRST and FOREMOST in everything you
think, everything you say, and in everything you
do!"

"LOVE one another the same way I LOVE you! Do GOOD
to one another the same way I do GOOD to you!"

("LOVE" one another with the exact same "LOVE" that God has for you!)
("TREAT" one another the exact same way God "TREATS" you!)

To do anything more than this, you create a
religion.

Therefore:

"Speak the TRUTH in LOVE, (pure love, that which
comes from above), and share that LOVE in that same
TRUTH, and DEEP WITHIN you will find that PEACE which
comes from the ETERNAL ABOVE,and NO ONE, (man, woman,
or child) shall ever steal that from you!...ONLY YOU!"

"When you do this, you truly DO keep me FIRST and
FOREMOST in everything you think, say, and do!"

!Remember! When my brother walked this earth almost
2000 years ago, he said, "If you love me, you will
keep my commandments".

I say also, "Those who do the will of my father in
heaven, are my brothers, sisters, and mother as well!"

"No one, (man, woman, or child,) has the right to take
away the life of another! Anyone who does so automatically
forfeits their own life!"

When you give, you live! When you take, you die!

Everyone is so caught up with what is happening on
the outside, that they are unaware that something "GREATER"
is waiting to "HAPPEN" for them on the INSIDE.

All that one sees on the outside, (that which you
see, touch and feel,) is the ULTIMATE LIE! That which is on
the inside is where one will find the truth!

That which is on the outside will pass away! If
that is what you long for, then, when it is gone, what
will you have left?

That which is on the inside will never pass away!
If that is what you truly desire, then that is what
shall remain!

If everyone who professes to be a true Christian,
and a true believer in God, truly did the will of the
LIVING GOD, there would be:

NO CRIME!

NO HUNGER!

NO HOMELESSNESS!

NO WALL TO WALL CONCRETE!

NO BONDAGE TO SLAVERY,(THE 'ALMIGHTY DOLLAR')!

AND!...

THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THOSE "YO-YOs"
WHICH CALL THEMSELVES, "POLITICIANS"!

AND!...

THERE WOULD NEVER BE ANOTHER "WAR".

Man was not created to be a "SLAVE"! Nor, was man created to live in "WALL-to-WALL" concrete!

Which is more important? That which is on the inside,
or that which is on the outside?

(The gift? Or the altar which sanctifies the gift?)

When you give, you live! When you take, you die!

CHOOSE THIS DAY WHOM YOU SHALL "SERVE"!

Serve God, you shall LIVE! Serve Man, you shall DIE!
This is the promise of God since the beginning of time!

(Excerpt form www.brothersky.net/index1a.htm)

by kerravon

> But I'm completely stumped about why the
> fellow doesn't like people whose names
> begin with the letter 'E'!

I'm not sure why you misunderstood that. My surname begins with the letter 'E'. I used it as an example of NOT aggregating people. Racism/sexism/etc are all forms of AGGREGATION. It is the same as discriminating against people whose surname begins with 'E'. It shouldn't be done. Everyone should be judged as an individual.

>Basically, much of what's listed is quite logical,

Thankyou. It seems people either love it or hate it. :-)

> He's either a super nut case or a super hero.

A LOT of effort has been put into creating that document. It is exactly as the original poster said - an attempt to solve the world's problems. It is racism/religious bigotry/nationalism that caused people to not treat the Iraqi women being raped by their own government as INDIVIDUALS and PROTECT them. They were instead all lumped together as "Arabs", "Muslims" or "Iraqis", and promptly ignored. I was horrified that anyone could ignore their screams. 50% of Australia didn't give a damn about their plight. Shocking.

Thanks for taking the time to go through my document. Next step is to get you to convert to the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam so that you can help reform Islam from within, instead of leaving the Muslims (incorrectly) thinking that they are in an out-group.

by maxwell edison

...or at least the way you come across. You just rub me the wrong way. I don't like anything about your messages -- and especially the way you present them. You appear to be a person I do not care to associate with, much less discuss serious issues with. You are SO "off-base" that it would be an effort in futility to try to converse. It's pointless.

by jardinier

for the mischief I am about to cause.

I think it may have been mjwx's first encounter with you, but I am not sure about that.

In any case his comment was so colourful that I saved it for a -- rainy day?

[b]So here is mjwx's opinion of you:[/b]

Jesus H Christ, I?ve met some idiots in my time but you definitely are the worst.
You are a stain on the fabric on society.

But then again max you have a history of opening your mouth without consulting your brain, if you even have one.

I fear not for what others might think But i do think carefully before I offend someone deliberately. You god-dammed ultra-right wing arsewipe of a shell of someone pretending to be a human being.

by maxwell edison

...for elitist people who presume to take "proxy" responsibility for others, which, by definition, includes me. Thanks, but no thanks. (Note: "Proxy" responsibility is to give the illusion of taking responsibility by forcing others to do it.) I have ZERO tolerance for people who presume to stick their nose into other people's business. And in the case of my VERY SIMPLE message, your reply suggested that you espouse denying one person his individual rights just because another person might shun his individual responsibility. That's the epitome of stinkin' thinkin'. Get over yourself!

People like you insist on infringing on the rights of others, and you provide a nonsensical justification for doing it; and I have NO TOLERANCE for people like you.

by mjwx

but its your problem and feel free not to take my advice to get over it.

I'll come at you straight and speak my mind, those [b]in my opinion[/b] are good traits.

You seem to have the completely wrong idea about me. I'd guess its projections, you have constantly mislabelled me (democrat and the like) and if you want to keep doing so go for your life. But I will still point out logical arguments and if you want to respond with insults and not reason so be it.

I don't consider myself better than everyone else but opinionated people are too much of a temptation not to have a go at. I like irony Max, so if I'm acting elitist its probably because you are also.

You can find plenty of examples of me acting out, sometimes to the point of being a hothead and I know you can say the same, but you will also find plenty times where I will eat humble pie. Can you say the same.

by protiusx

You had probably expected this from me. I read a bit until I got disgusted and then clicked off the page.
This is a load of dribble intended for... Well I'm not quite sure but hey good luck with your religiosity.

by Member 25348569

I just couldn't be bothered.

But then, I am on holiday so I can ask to be excused. I can't honestly say I could get it together to read any of that in my own time.

I'm at my closest to you at the moment - Monterey - so if I wave, will you see me?

Neil :D

by protiusx

I grew up down there! I lived in Almaden which is a suburb of San Jose. Did you go to the Aquarium? Where you able to go to Santa Cruz? My Dad and I use to fish of the pier there all the time. We even went out on Stagnaro's fishing boats a few times. I spent a lot of time on the beach when I was in high school. I have a lot of really good memories down there.
One time a few years ago a co-worker and I were on a business trip to San Francisco and I decided to show him where I grew up and so we took a half day a drove down threw San Jose and then on to Monterey. We went to the Aquarium and he really liked it. I wonder if the still have to sting ray petting pool? We went there and I was trying to get him to pet one and said "See look at those kids over there. They're petting the rays" and he said "Do they still have their barbs?" and I said "of course not. You think they would let people pet them with their barbs?" and one of the workers overheard me and said "Oh we don't take the barbs out. That would be inhuman." Needless to say he didn't pet a ray.
I think the Gilroy Garlic festival is going on around this time of year. Were you able to make to that?
Were you able to make it to San Francisco? I love that city.

by Member 25348569

I can't quite see that you would think that I would be interested in this, Jules. The application of logic to my observations of the world about me forced me to come to the conclusion that there are no gods. Therefore the suggestion that this is a more "intelligent" form of Islam is to me just a slightly lesser form of stupidity. It's just another religion. Why should I care?

I'm a simple atheist. I am no an evangelist.

:D

by kerravon

"The application of logic to my observations of the world about me forced me to come to the conclusion that there are no gods."

I did the same thing, for most of my life, and I too was a hard-core atheist. However, I was wrong, as you are too. There is no way for you to prove that we are not living in a virtual reality computer simulation, with God as the computer programmer. Part of the reason for my being an atheist was the gross atrocities that occurred in this world. But in the computer simulation model, it is possible that these atrocities are being simulated as well. It is not possible for you to scientifically conclude that there is no God. And it happens to be wrong.

"Therefore the suggestion that this is a more "intelligent" form of Islam is to me just a slightly lesser form of stupidity."

It is only sort of Islam. It's actually a brand new religion, badged as Islam.

"It's just another religion. Why should I care?"

The principles contained within it are scientifically-derived from our genes. It doesn't rely on anything supernatural. It is suitable for use by atheists.

by Member 25348569

This is the philosophical viewpoint that one's own perceptions are the only things that can be known with certainty. The nature of the external world therefore cannot be conclusively known and it may not even exist.

It's also a metaphysical belief that the universe is entirely the creation of one's own mind which leads to the belief that nothing 'exists' outside of one's own mind.

Or "Head up your own arse" syndrome.

This "computer program" crap sounds very much akin.

Nice to know that you were once like me and that you realised that you - and therefore I - were wrong. I don't give a monkey's left nut whether this was obtained from Islam or "from our genes" - what? - it's still utter tosh.

Neil

Oh, and push off, you patronising git. I'm on vacation, I don't have to read this.

by jardinier

Surely my syntax can't be THAT bad.

I was referring to the discussions at

http://www.meetchristians.com

Protius I think would enjoy discussing theology with a wide range of Christian viewpoints, and you, Neil, could add a rational impartial input.

As I said Gret has been accepted as a legitimate and useful contributor, even though she is an atheistic Jew.

As for myself, well no-one can tell where I am coming from, just as is the case in religous discussions at TR, because I don't align with any particular grouping or doctrine.

by jardinier

I don't think our friend is talking about familiar philosophic or metaphysical concepts.

As an IT person you should (and no doubt do) know that living in a computer generated virtual world would be a SCIENTIFIC reality, with no dependence on philosophic or metaphysical theories.

by Member 25348569

and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate ....

We've had this crap before Julian. It may e the most profound truth on the mystery of existence but it's still unprovable so matters not one jot when applied to real life.

Neil :D

And real death.

by kerravon

"running program in a higher level substrate and the substrate in which that program is running is a running program in a higher level substrate"

Yes, the entity at the level above us may not actually know the details of how they were created. They could just be us with an extra 1000 or 1 million years of computer technology up their sleeve.

"It may e the most profound truth on the mystery of existence but it's still unprovable so matters not one jot when applied to real life."

It may be unprovable, but it provides a great model for the universe, it provides the concept of what the 4th dimension and above actually is, it opens up the possibility that "God" is a mere computer programmer rather than something supernatural, it explains why in a 13.7 billion year history of the universe that we're not 1 million years either way, which would shatter the simulation (1 million years earlier and the world is very dull, 1 million later and we would have downloaded our brains onto our own VR system). And we're at the exact point in history when world freedom is within grasp now that communism has been defeated. And certainly this model rules out the possibility of a conclusion that there's no God, as a simulation fits all the known facts, and is precisely what we would do ourselves if we had the technology already.

by protiusx

Yeah! Tell em to bugger off! I am going to have to look that one up now thank you very much. The rabbit holes I go down after reading TR. Jeesh!

by Member 25348569

We were traveling through Yosemite from Bishop and this took most of the day so we didn't arrive in Monterey until after dark. No time for the aquarium, alas. Couldn't make it to SF either as the following day we were heading down the Pacific Coast Highway to Santa Barbara for a couple of days chill-out before the final hack up I15 to Vegas to fly out Saturday.

The PCH was very good although there was a lot of fog in the northern half. Santa Barbara is very nice and we've had a day on the beach and by the pool. Crab and beer on the pier for lunch - all very nice.

Hollywood tomorrow for the last outing. I don't particularly care for it but Ma is setting the itinerary and I do what I'm told.

Neil :D

ps There's a stingray petting pool in Seaworld in Orlando. Great fun but I bet it's less popular since Steve Irwin!

by levannah44

"15. MARRIAGE

Marriage is no time to wait to find out if two people are sexually compatible. In order to make marriage meaningful, it should only be taken up after sufficient time, maybe 2 years, has passed so that the initial romance has finished and people are spending more time quibbling over housework than walking around starry-eyed. The most important thing in a marriage is to ensure that children grow up in a healthy environment with 2 parents. Eugenics is acceptable if it is used to eliminate people who aren't born with empathy from the human race, or to remove genetic defects or simply to improve the human race. So long as it is done according to science not pseudo-science.

Technically, the number of wives or husbands you can have should be left to a free decision between the parties involved. However, this situation changes if children are involved. Children have a right to be born into a normal family with 2 loving parents. Girls get psychological problems if they are raised in a family with more than 1 wife. Society needs to protect children from irresponsible parents. Laws restricting marriage between a single couple is probably appropriate. If adults want to have informal arrangements and use contraception, I guess they can do whatever they want. When women are living in groups, their menstrual cycles become synchronized, meaning they are fertile at the same time. This is an attempt by nature to force the male to choose a single mate, so that the child has the best chance of survival."

This seems, in general, a fairly common sense approach to marriage, given the high divorce/separation rates in today's (mostly western) societies.

However, I do have a couple of points to raise. Firstly, the problem of eugenics, which, I assume, is closely associated with genetics, cloning, stem-cell research and the human genome in general.

Eugenics is one of those areas which, in the wrong hands, can only produce heartache and tragedy. Used correctly, of course, it would help to eliminate a great deal of suffering by stamping out genetically inherited diseases and defects, except the laws governing such use would need to be extremely tight, even a system of licensing to certain medical institutions only being adopted.

I'm not sure if this could really be achieved so that there were absolutely NO loopholes, and would personally feel rather unsafe living in such a world.

"Children have a right to be born into a normal family with 2 loving parents."

I'm not quite sure what this really means. Of course children have a right to be born into a 'normal' family, but first, tell me what 'normal' is.

I for one, do not consider the so-called 'nuclear family' normal. It creates more stress and tension than any other form of family group, leading to separation and divorce.

Yes, I agree a child has the right to grow up with two loving parents, but again, what's that? These days, with homosexual couples (of all degrees) adopting children or surrogating them with heterosexual friends, how does one really define two loving parents?

Then again, it wasn't so long ago in the great scheme of things (two or three generations at most, I'd say) when 'normal' family meant parents, children, one or more grandparent/s and unmarried male and/or female relatives all living under the one roof.

We don't, in general, have large families these days, but groups of like-minded people have still come together since then to form 'communes' or 'communities' where everything was shared including the minding of children and the getting of wisdom.

In nineteenth century (and following) families, where so many lived together under the one roof, parents were relieved of child-minding duties 24/7 by other members of the family - maiden aunts, cousins, grandparents - and the mix of generations also encouraged old wisdom to be passed down firsthand, rather than the often hit and miss way it is today.

So - I would like to know why modern marriages couldn't exist in a wider family community than we have now, maybe not under a single roof but at least in a close cluster of roofs which gives plenty of privacy as well as 'family' times under the one setup?

I'll come back later, Julian, and have a go at one or two other paragraphs.

Gret

by kerravon

"Yes, I agree a child has the right to grow up with two loving parents, but again, what's that? These days, with homosexual couples (of all degrees) adopting children or surrogating them with heterosexual friends, how does one really define two loving parents?"

I meant a mother and a father. I don't think that children should have to contend with the "unnatural" choices of homosexuals. If people want to be homosexual, that's their choice. But they shouldn't involve kids in it (and by nature, homosexuals wouldn't be able to have kids).

BTW, most of these paragraphs are just brainstorming, not definitive. It's just an example to encourage others to use their own brains to come up with something, using the best science we have available. I've tried to find answers in our genes.

by levannah44

OK, Kerravon, I can live with that definition of parents (although it still doesn't solve the gay adoption rights issue, which seems to be growing by the hour!), but what about the so-called 'nuclear family'?

There's nothing wrong (in my eyes) with a family living as a small community in order to support one another. It's happened before; it's still happening around the world somewhere today.

Your arguments mightn't be set in concrete yet, but I'm just curious about what you think.

Gret

by kerravon

> but what about the so-called 'nuclear family'?

I don't have an opinion on nuclear vs extended family. That is an individual choice. I prefer nuclear myself.

This discussion is closed to new replies.