The World

Steamboat, I did read the post, and while I understand what you are saying, and you are correct in your thoughts, though it may be an uphill battle in today's society, respectfully, i'll stick by my answer.

The American Red Cross was an Organization that was formed out of chaos, but it did not become what it is currently overnight, it took time and patience ( and might I add it was started by one woman showing kindness and it grew to the worlds largest volunteer organization)

you are right....men/ or Women, ( gotta be politically correct so we don't offend the women of the order, they are just as important as men) can be saved if they choose to be, however If a person falls, we can offer them a hand up, if they choose to decline it, that is their choice...but at least we attempted to make the offer and action to help. That alone speaks volumes.

I do not believe we need a "jedi order" I believe we need what we have, a growing group of like minded individuals who believe in doing good and believing in kindness to your fellow man/woman believing in a "force" that binds us together as brothers and sisters that has no limitations on distance. Do we need a jedi order to stop this madness? no, we can do it by being kind to one another one person at a time, that is worth it.

One of my favorite cheesy movies is The Core. In it the earth's core has stopped spinning and the atmosphere is collapsing and the only way to fix it is for this group of scientists to go into the earths core and set off a series of nuclear bombs that restart the core like an electric shock restarts a human heart. Ignoring any scientific issues there, we proceed to the relevant point.

At one point the main character (Aaron Eckhart) is in total despair and his friend says to him (I'm paraphrasing) "You are trying to save the world and that is too much for one person. Me, I just hope that I am smart enough and brave enough to save my wife and two daughters." This becomes the battle cry, so to speak, for the movie. "Not the whole world, just three of them."

a thought to keep in mind is media coverage....

has there really been a global increase? or is it an increase in media coverage....

looking at the historical records...there has been an increase in some things and a decrease in other things....

despite being social creatures humans are in constant conflict and with an increase in population there is naturally going to be an increase in conflict....want to reduce wars and suffering....wipe out half the population and watch how fast people work together....increase the amount of space people have to move about and conflicts will drop as differences in perspective will be less likely to collide....

"life comes from death, disorder, and chaos"-gary oldman in the fifth element

RyuJin wrote: has there really been a global increase? or is it an increase in media coverage....

It absolutely has to do with media coverage and the rapid pace at which information can now be shared. Without instantaneous international communication, we would all be oblivious to most everything going on outside of our immediate environment. Wars would still be waged. We just wouldn't know about it.

The conflict in Vietnam was a huge turning point concerning public opinion about sending soldiers to war because it was the first time people at home could watch a war live and in color on their television sets every night. Does that mean Vietnam was a more brutal conflict than WWII or the Crusades? Of course not. It just seemed so to the people watching because the information was arriving at a much faster pace.

Imagine Christopher Columbus, if you will. The guy rolls up on a beach believing he's in the West Indies, eventually realizes he's on an entirely different continent, and discovers all kinds of new people, plants and animals. Kind of a big deal, right? It took his ships and crew months to get back to Europe before anyone learned of his "discoveries". And what would've happened had his ships sank on the way back? How long would it take before the next European explorer stumbled onto the same shores again?

Now compare that to Neil Armstrong broadcasting live from the moon...

Interesting thought.......I remember when Diana was killed in 1997. My whole family are ham radio operators and we heard about the crash in France before it was even released to the media. My father woke us all up and said the Princess of England has been killed. We knew before they even had a press conference. It's too bad that we cannot take that immediate knowledge and use it for something positive rather than people complaining on facebook.

i belive that in 100 yrs the internet will be considered abasic human right such as clean drinking water and access to medical attention

it should be treated that way now as far as im concerned

we're using it for something positive right now

OB1Shinobi wrote: i belive that in 100 yrs the internet will be considered abasic human right such as clean drinking water and access to medical attention

It won't take a hundred years. There have been lobbyists for that for the last five. However, just like clean drinking water, just because it's a basic human right doesn't mean everyone's going to get it in a timely fashion.

I don't think anyone's complaining about the internet so much as the media. As you said, we're using it for a good purpose here, but with so many media outlets running 24/7 almost every little thing can be reported on. Of course, the media picks what to report and what not to report effecting our outlook on the world.

For an example, the other day I saw an article about a man who stopped a mass shooting before anyone other than the initial shooter got hurt. That didn't make big news, but if the shooter had injured and/or killed even a few of the people he was shooting at then it would have been big news and we'd once again feel like the world is a terrible place. As it stands there was one man who was a hero and saved a lot of lives but no one knows that because of the media.

@steamboat
thats cool, i didnt know that idea had any deliberate political representation
thats really awesome to learn; turns out the world is doing better than i realized!

Goken wrote: I don't think anyone's complaining about the internet so much as the media. As you said, we're using it for a good purpose here, but with so many media outlets running 24/7 almost every little thing can be reported on. Of course, the media picks what to report and what not to report effecting our outlook on the world.

For an example, the other day I saw an article about a man who stopped a mass shooting before anyone other than the initial shooter got hurt. That didn't make big news, but if the shooter had injured and/or killed even a few of the people he was shooting at then it would have been big news and we'd once again feel like the world is a terrible place. As it stands there was one man who was a hero and saved a lot of lives but no one knows that because of the media.

i agree 100 percent with what youre saying and my response is that we ARE the media

i mean, someone reported it for you, and you just reported it to us, now im using google to look up both the political representation of internet access AND this shooting - btw, you dont happen to remember where it was do you?