Compassion and positivity are the only solution

[Teo1]

It's funny how 'heady' people can be so stressed and frazzled.

The only way that humanity will survive is through compassion and getting along. Plain and simple. Anyone left behind will cause problems. Separatists will have their armageddon, THEIRs.

As time moves on, our world is smaller, and instead of hating people at a distance, we are all closer. We can't keep hating "them" and "there," these are ever closer.

Why I say compassion AND positivity is this: there are many many solutions that greedy people don't want shared. When compassion happens (cool phrase eh? ) I think innumerable positive solutions will come forth, they are just waiting for the right time: when we disallow dependence moguls like the oil industries to squelch far reaching resources.

So let's be positive and spread the idea that solutions will show up when the are ready. Just get rid of the dependency creating people. Easy!

Balance and awareness, Teo

 

[objectivist]

There is one simple equation that will lead to peace, it is when mankind accepts that force is an unacceptible means of accomplishing ones goals, and that the initiation of force must be banned. The initiation of force is at once an international problem and a domestic one. On the domestic level, individuals use force fraud and coercion against one another at high rates, and the government is used as a form of institutionalized violence as pressure groups lobby to get the government to force their own special desires enforced through law at the expense of individual autonomy. If we are to make it to a type I civilization man must ban the initiation of force, the only cause of crime and war.

 

[Phobos]

Tough thing to ban. Criminals & despots tend to ignore laws. But an overal shift in human culture toward that mindset would be good.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by objectivist
There is one simple equation that will lead to peace, it is when mankind accepts that force is an unacceptible means of accomplishing ones goals, and that the initiation of force must be banned. The initiation of force is at once an international problem and a domestic one. On the domestic level, individuals use force fraud and coercion against one another at high rates, and the government is used as a form of institutionalized violence as pressure groups lobby to get the government to force their own special desires enforced through law at the expense of individual autonomy. If we are to make it to a type I civilization man must ban the initiation of force, the only cause of crime and war.

This brings up a very sticky problem from an evolutionary standpoint. Human technology has already arrived at the creation of weapons of mass destruction. So far, only the more responsible nations have possession of such weapons in large quantity, but in the hands of certain unscrupulous individuals, these weapons could level entire civilizations. Soon, these same weapons and their terrifying capabilities will be in the hands of less civilized nations, which lack the moral and ethical restraint to prohibit their indiscriminate use.

And that is the dilemma; as those nations which refuse to initiate force must passively await the initiation of force by the more aggressive and violent. In a world where such capable weapons exist, the first strike in a war could well be the last. This would result in a world in which those who are willing to initiate force would be the only survivors, and passivity leads to extinction.

The only solution I can see to this dilemma is the initiation of force with restraint.

 

[JLawrenceIV]

The only solution I can see to this dilemma is the initiation of force with restraint.

Whenever you decide to use any level of force you are playing with fire. The negative consequences could show up even generations down the road. It is better not to use force, and focus on living in peace and safety. Someone has to decide to stop fighting for the violence to cease. Tit for tat violence just creates more violence.

Teo was correct in his first statement that in the end society will have to be compasionate and peaceful if it ever wants to make it to a type 1.

It is important for humans to overcome their aggressive reptile instincts and ascend to a higher level of order and prosperity.

 

[LURCH]

I agree that "tit for tat violence" would only perpetuate the problem. But that is not initiation with restraint. For example; when a police officer shoots a criminal suspect, there are restraints on whether he is authorised to do so. These restraints are closely monitered and carefully enforced. Each officer undergoes extensive training to make the rules of engagement clear, and each incident wherein an officer's firearm is discharged is reviewed after the fact to determine whether the restraints were strictly adhered to. A case of violence simply for the sake of violence will result in the removal of the officer's firearm from his possession and termination from his job, probably followed by prosecution and prison time. An instance of violence in response to violence, or retaliation, will also result in punishements of verrying degrees, depending on the particulars of the case. Only violence to prevent greater violence is considered aceptable and necessary. Without the capacity to initiate violence of any kind, an officer would be forced to stand idly by and watch a violent criminal commit random acts of brutality on the people the officer is sworn to protect. This would not only be useless but, IMHO, morally wrong. To stand by and through inaction permit violent people to commit violent acts against the innocent when one has the means to prevent it renders the inactive person partially guilty of the crime. So, if a criminal has made it clear, either by his words or by his actions, that he intends to shoot smomeone, and then that same criminal reaches for a nearby gun, any law enforcement officer in a position to shoot the criminal first is not only authorised, but required to do so. This is for the protection of the intended victim or victims, including the officer himself.

It is likewise immoral to say that a nation that is under attack by another nation should stand idly by and watch its own citizens be slaughtered. Similarly, if one nation has declared that it plans to attack another, and can be seen to be actively preparing for that attack, it would be morally wrong to require that the intended victim "just stand there and take it". Nations and people must be allowed to defend themselves.