Humanity's possible journey to unison

I've been exposed to a few media references to the state Africa is in. Particular the factors of child soldiers and tribal wars. It made me think again of a conversation I've had with a possible legit walk-in at some point. I really rather not get into the details of her, but when I use the term 'walk-in' I mean it that she could be convincing proof for so many things, including therianthropy/otherkin, yet she deviates from what is considered a 'walk-in', but that's a different story.

The conversation started about extra-terrestrial life and whether or not we as a species are ready for it, should they be out there. I do believe in extra-terrestrial life, mostly because out of all the planets and stars we're aware of (which most likely is not even a glimpse of the total cosmos) it's insanely unlikely that our planet is the only one capable of supporting life.

If alien life is out there and it would be curious for contact with other life forms, which is reasonable to assume, I'd argue that there are specific traits that we'd actually have to display before they'd initiate contact. This is kind of inferred out of our interaction with the other species on this planet. We don't try to teach theoretical physics to our pets, after all. We'd have to wait until we're capable of communicating with them on a sufficient enough level and have it reasonable to assume that they'd understand it. I believe similarly if we're noticed by other life forms, they'd await certain traits from us before they'd interact.

My friend, that I referred to earlier, made the argument that one of the biggest things would be humanity's unison. While empirical, irrefutable proof of intelligent alien life would most likely unite all of us, if even for a relatively brief time period, I believe that this is a stage that we'd have to accomplish legit by ourselves.

The lbgt front is one area, but there are so many other trivial area's that cause separation between us. Thinking of race, religion, wealth, health and illness, to name a few. Then there's also, in my opinion the most absurd one, national borders. I thought that the whole concept of the European Union would be a magnificent step in the right direction, but the general xenophobic 'us versus them' mentality that certain political figures in my country have been preaching lately saddens me. Particular since the whole nationality issue is mostly based on what political borders your mother happened to birth you on. But, I digress....

How do you feel about our collective journey towards planetary equality? Are there specific areas that you feel we're accomplishing a lot? What area do you believe would possibly take the most effort and why? Also, do you believe that planet wide equality would be a good thing?

Equality is kind of a big concept...I mean, ideally, yes, everyone would be equal. 'Ideally' here meaning 'if everything was completely fair'.

But, does complete equality exclude people from being leaders? Is it possible for society to function without power hierarchies? So maybe it wouldn't actually be desirable.

All of those areas you mentioned (race, sexuality, health etc) have come a looong way. Things like gender - everyone knows there's still disparity. It's a proven fact that women still often get paid less for doing the same job as a man (in the UK, at least). There's still a lot of sexism and a lot of double-standards. BUT, compare the situation to how it used to be. It's unrecognisable, right? As are all of those areas.

The problem seems to be that you win over the majority, and then you're left with the hardcore anti-brigade. So, once you've got the ball rolling, one of the hardest things with achieving equality is getting over the finish line. There will always be someone who doesn't want equality, hence usually the best you can hope to achieve is near-equality, as opposed to true equality.

I can't see worldwide equality happening any time soon, if ever. Certain nations or subsections of society are getting quite good at striving for equality, but to have every person in the world on the same page about everything? Take the sexuality issue, for instance. In some countries LGBT couples have equal rights with any other couple. In other countries being gay is illegal and punishable by death. And then you get tribal groups who are completely disconnected with the rest of the world and don't even know that there's a worldwide debate going on in the first place.

In order to achieve equality, you have to address people's basic, implanted beliefs. And there are so many different cultures, religions, backgrounds etc in the world that it would probably take thousands of years to do that.

Although, it makes me wonder - if it is so hard for the human race to achieve, would your aliens find it any easier?

maybe I am an optimist, but I would hope it wouldn't take thousands of years.
although, even if the world was united in a way I don't think we would get rid of national borders, atleast not completely.

While I find communautarianism/sectarianism stupid and annoying, I do not want unity. I'm happy to do things my own way, others are happy to do theirs. everybody's doing their own thing AND happy. If there's opportunity to do things together let's go, otherwise why force it? And since you were talking about the EU, this is exactly why I think the EU should chuck the UK out. The Uk's obviously not interested in doing things together, and it's not like farage+friends aren't a bunch of filthy parasites in parliament.... It seems obvious to me certain things aren't meant to be (and De Gaulle knew it)

Aviare wrote: How do you feel about our collective journey towards planetary equality? Are there specific areas that you feel we're accomplishing a lot? What area do you believe would possibly take the most effort and why? Also, do you believe that planet wide equality would be a good thing?

Its a capacity for complexity which seems to separate us from animals, and so a society structured into law, ethics and socially accepted morals seems to allow concepts of the 'individual' to becomes a separate entity - one that can be held as a universal place in the system, allowing the adoption of standards in equality.

In that system things like gender, race, beliefs etc can be removed from being factors, unlike in the adhoc structures of security/power/authority that bubble up in poorer societies. In wealthier societies those adhoc structures of power exist at the periphery where law is less able to operate effectively, but in poor societies they tend to define ones worth in terms of those power structures! Thus what we might call discrimination occurs because ones worth is not defined as being an individual, but rather for what they bring to it... and likewise suffer if they bring nothing.

Its funny because one way the individual is free because they are not recognized for what makes them an individual, but in the other way they are not free because they are recognized for what makes them an individual. Its a bit cold sounding but its just a structural position - a label and relationship.

The same thing happens in capitalism, but its supposed to be limited to the economics of 'work', but not human rights. The human rights freedoms are meant to allow the freedom to fuel innovation and health through an environment of relative freedom. By channeling the competition into economics it's probably meant to drive activity and purpose within that structure of law, ethics and morality.

Not a very original opinion as its just my observations of what is happening in the current western world.

So I think the vastly different economies of the world are the biggest impediment at the moment for global equality. It will always need a scale of economies, but the top needs to build the base for without that it will itself fall, and so the poverty baseline should be lifted to allow participation ie some type of welfare. As unpopular as it sounds we'd need more rich people!!!.... but they'd need to stop hording it for themselves so much.

An alien race arriving here would probably have to have an ordered society to survive the journey in developing and then the rigor of space travel, but it need not be equality IMO. I think it would depend on their biology and psychology as to what worked best for them. Remembering we are all different, with humans the differences do not seem to matter so much (barely perceptible or non-functional differences) so I think a global equality for human rights would work well.

V-Tog wrote: But, does complete equality exclude people from being leaders? Is it possible for society to function without power hierarchies? So maybe it wouldn't actually be desirable.

Equality doesn't have to played out in that way. You could for instance have a society where everybody's able to completely play into his or her strengths and passions, regardless of the environment or financial situation they originate from. This could be considered equality while still maintaining power hierarchies.

V-Tog wrote: The problem seems to be that you win over the majority, and then you're left with the hardcore anti-brigade. So, once you've got the ball rolling, one of the hardest things with achieving equality is getting over the finish line. There will always be someone who doesn't want equality, hence usually the best you can hope to achieve is near-equality, as opposed to true equality.

I can't see worldwide equality happening any time soon, if ever. Certain nations or subsections of society are getting quite good at striving for equality, but to have every person in the world on the same page about everything? Take the sexuality issue, for instance. In some countries LGBT couples have equal rights with any other couple. In other countries being gay is illegal and punishable by death. And then you get tribal groups who are completely disconnected with the rest of the world and don't even know that there's a worldwide debate going on in the first place.

This is absolutely true, but if you consider the even bigger advances we've made as a species. From the Dark Ages to now, for instance. Who's to say that in a similar interval we wouldn't be able to achieve somewhere in the 90% of planetary equality? Perhaps it could happen before then, when we'll start colonizing other celestial bodies. We would then be able to have more room then for ideological differences to gravitate to their own space, avoiding conflict. This could go completely wrong, though, if we don't keep our history in mind. I do agree that worldwide equality won't happen any time soon, but I do believe we will achieve it at some point. We're getting closer to at least being able to address the issues that divide us in conversation.

V-Tog wrote: Although, it makes me wonder - if it is so hard for the human race to achieve, would your aliens find it any easier?

I don't think alien life would have it significantly easier than us, assuming that their psychology is comparable to our own. If they'd have such a different psychology than us, we'd first need to have some research done into xenopsychology to be able to answer that question, lol.

But the thing is, we experience 'reality', the universe and life itself from our perspective. Not just the human perspective, but also an Earth-centric perspective. For all we know we're a relatively young species compared to other species out there. If we would ever have First Contact, it's reasonable to assume that the species that we would have that contact with could be several million years our senior. That's time they've been able to spend into advancing their own species.

For our own species there are indications that we're not growing consistently towards bettering ourselves. Think of the architectural aspects of the Great Pyramids and how many questions we've still got about that. Not to mention our inability to accurately duplicate it. Then there's the 'coincidence' of the Easter Island statues, Stonehenge, the Bermuda Triangle, the Pyramids and so many other interesting locations all laying on the same lines on our planet. There are many more questions left unanswered of our own history which illustrate that a lot of knowledge has been lost to us. It's interesting to think about where we would be today if that knowledge had not gone lost.

Renny wrote: maybe I am an optimist, but I would hope it wouldn't take thousands of years.
although, even if the world was united in a way I don't think we would get rid of national borders, at least not completely.

Is there any particular reason why you believe we would not get rid of national borders?

ren wrote: While I find communautarianism/sectarianism stupid and annoying, I do not want unity. I'm happy to do things my own way, others are happy to do theirs. everybody's doing their own thing AND happy. If there's opportunity to do things together let's go, otherwise why force it? And since you were talking about the EU, this is exactly why I think the EU should chuck the UK out. The Uk's obviously not interested in doing things together, and it's not like farage+friends aren't a bunch of filthy parasites in parliament.... It seems obvious to me certain things aren't meant to be (and De Gaulle knew it)

I believe that the UK should stay within the EU. If anything they're a good balancing voice between Germany and France and tend to keep the whole Eastern Europe/Western Europe discussion somewhat on the table, causing more development in Eastern Europe. The anti-European voice is pretty much spread over the entire continent, but is mostly made up of populist arguments, to the best of my knowledge. I haven't really heard of any argument against the EU that makes sense when you think about it.

Adder wrote: So I think the vastly different economies of the world are the biggest impediment at the moment for global equality. It will always need a scale of economies, but the top needs to build the base for without that it will itself fall, and so the poverty baseline should be lifted to allow participation ie some type of welfare. As unpopular as it sounds we'd need more rich people!!!.... but they'd need to stop hording it for themselves so much.

It seems to me that an alternative economy would be able to solve this issue as well. It's interesting that you brought up that argument, as the person I referred to in the original post actually had an argument for this as well. She believed that a multi-layered economy/government would be the answer. Pure democracy, communism or any of our known forms of government would not be able to sustain this. Her theoretical approach was a two layer economy. One layer of this is a biometric currency. Meaning that it's bound to the individual via the use of iris scans, fingerprints, genetics or whichever is most practical. Having this be biometric means it can only be used by that particular person and would only be useable for the life essentials. Food, water, healthcare, etc. The income for these funds would be time-based, adjusted to the person's specifics. In order to have this system work we'd need a certain level of communism.

The second layer of this proposed economy would be an electronic currency independent of location, which would give it the same relative value in Iran, China, Germany, the US, Australia, etc. This currency would be for luxury goods, treats, vacations and all that. The income for this layer would come from labor and would have a minimum and maximum wage. There would also be a third layer to this economy which would be between the aforementioned two layers. This currency would be both biometric and electronically accessible and be used for housing, travel or supplementing purchases for the other things. The income for this layer would be from work, rewards and time based. For instance on birthdays, holidays, volunteering, donating blood, etc.

Adder wrote: An alien race arriving here would probably have to have an ordered society to survive the journey in developing and then the rigor of space travel, but it need not be equality IMO. I think it would depend on their biology and psychology as to what worked best for them. Remembering we are all different, with humans the differences do not seem to matter so much (barely perceptible or non-functional differences) so I think a global equality for human rights would work well.

I don't agree with the first part of this paragraph. It seems to me that if a species would be advanced enough of pinpointing life in the universe and traveling towards it, they'd also have a far better understanding of quantum computation, ethics and safety. After all they don't know for certain how we'd react to first contact or whether we're actually here as opposed to them having a false positive in their search. The first step would then be reasonable to send engineered ambassadors with probable holographic methods of communication and systems based on quantum entanglement to be able to relay information across the cosmos instantly. Holographic methods of communication would help greatly in communicating, as I doubt that English would be taught at their planet. Plus, engineered ambassadors, such as robots, would be more replaceable and easier to utilize for such long space travels than organic life. Assuming that the aliens are mortal and living on a planet several thousand lightyears away from here.

Is there any particular reason why you believe we would not get rid of national borders?

well...even if there was a world government, there would still need to be other smaller governments, maybe some national borders would be altered but I don't think we would get rid of them completely.
I mean most countries today have the country as a whole, and providences/states, and then cities and what not.
I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I suppose I see national borders as something useful instead of just something that divides us.

Its a matter of time...when every kid grows up watching the same prgrams in the same language this other BS will fall away...

Borders do nothing but claim who owns what land. A world with border is the same as a world without border. Structurally there is no difference to the planet. Its all imaginary owner ship.

Equality and unity are all utopian ideas. Like alcoholics, utopian ideas promise change in the future rather than in the present. Pretty useless ideas from where I'm standing. Its in diversity but with respect that you'll find harmony. There is no one right way to live. Equality and unity express just that.

Just some pessimism to the optimist.

I believe that the UK should stay within the EU. If anything they're a good balancing voice between Germany and France and tend to keep the whole Eastern Europe/Western Europe discussion somewhat on the table, causing more development in Eastern Europe. The anti-European voice is pretty much spread over the entire continent, but is mostly made up of populist arguments, to the best of my knowledge. I haven't really heard of any argument against the EU that makes sense when you think about it.

The UK doesn't cause anything in the EU. It either does nothing or prevents things from happening. insults the east... and doesn't cause any discussions. Don't get me wrong, I personally benefit from the UK's presence in the EU. It's an excellent backdoor and is manipulated (thanks to poor implementation of democracy) by people with whom I share interests, unlike the population of my country, which is just plain stupid.
But while membership of the UK is in my personal interest, from an ideological point of view (you know, doing what's "right"), the UK should definitely be out and not be allowed back in.

edit: I actually hope people vote UKIP at the general election. While I resent the presence of these parasites in the EU parliament, there is nothing they can do there , however they can definitely get the UK out if they were to get majority in westminster. Or vote BNP (they look like a more honest bunch to be fair)