[VoiceOfSilver]

This one thought has been on my mind for a few days, and I think I've come to my conclusion for now: If I could change one thing in the world, what would it be?

The most popular choice I've heard of is World Hunger. No one wants to feel bad about their mansions and five-star dinner when children are starving in Africa, right?

But what is the root of World Hunger?

Human Stupidity, human Foolishness, humans being Greedy.

Another one choice is Sexism. Very few people enjoy being stomped on because of their gender. I myself become very frustrated when I can or cannot do something simply because I'm 'a woman.'

At first that seems like a marvelous idea, but when I dig deeper, I realize the roots of it, (Human Selfishness, Pride, Arrogance, Idiocy, Weakness) I realize those roots are more important than the actual problem.

I could continue and bore you, but my answer to what I would change is this: Our Human Nature. Because our Nature is not to go out and save the world, it's to bring others down on our way up. Really, how can you believe we're 'good people' when girls are being sold into sexual slavery every day and the government does little or nothing to stop it? When children do go hungry and starve to death?

I would change our very Nature to make it pure, not ignorant and hateful.

My question, however, is what one thing would you change in the world?

 

[Jewl]

@VoiceOfSilver - I definitely agree with what you said about human nature. That is the one thing I would change, if I could.

 

[Ramysa]

I'd make all human beings care for one another and for the environment, coz resources exist, we just need to care enough and share what we have equally.

 

[VoiceOfSilver]

coz resources exist, we just need to care enough and share what we have equally.

True but if you have to make a priority it needs to be humans...

 

[Shrubber]

I would change our very Nature to make it pure, not ignorant and hateful.

Yes, I agree (and I'm not just piggybacking or whatever, I had come to this conclusion before I saw this thread).
BUT now define human nature and all its aspects and link it to every societal and cultural practice/phenomenon that exists, or just every negative phenomenon, and tell me how we solve each specific issue and how that affects the ways in which we exist and structure our society and what we think defines humanity.

Say we don't want anybody to cheat. How do we do that? Do we make people happy with one partner forever, or not desire any partner at all? How would one make somebody happy with one partner forever -- or is it not necessarily monogamy, but switching partners, one partner at a time? How does that one work?
Or do we make all people happy with people no matter what -- but how do we do that? What makes or breaks a relationship, then, or even stimulates a relationship to start? Are we all the same, or are we all neutral or loving toward everyone else no matter what characteristics they have? Is it all just dry, arranged marriages? What makes people dissatisfied with one another in the first place, or gives them an urge to cheat? How does eliminating that affect how we view love in our society?
Or is it really the thing, or the effects that it has on people, that we need to get rid of? Do we get rid of cheating, or do we get rid of people caring about cheating? Do we just make everybody polyamorous and throw the concepts of monogamy and cheating out the window and totally restructure society?

That's where this answer gets fun!

Also, I enjoy the picture in your signature.

And I'm sorry I'm long winded. I think I got carried away. A bit.

 

[VoiceOfSilver]

Say we don't want anybody to cheat. How do we do that?

By making it against their very nature to cheat. To make it impossible for them to cheat, just like it's impossible for humans to fly without being on an airplane/synthetic wings.

Do we make people happy with one partner forever, or not desire any partner at all? How would one make somebody happy with one partner forever -- or is it not necessarily monogamy, but switching partners, one partner at a time? How does that one work?
Or do we make all people happy with people no matter what -- but how do we do that? What makes or breaks a relationship, then, or even stimulates a relationship to start? Are we all the same, or are we all neutral or loving toward everyone else no matter what characteristics they have? Is it all just dry, arranged marriages?

As for marriages, and being happy with on person the rest of their lives:
Where their Nature allows them to be wise enough and certain enough of their decision and the other's compatibilities to make the right decision. And their Nature would make them so committed that they were blind to the attractiveness of the opposite sex.
What stimulates a relationship to start:
Physical attractiveness, but not in a lustful way, and then once physical attractiveness has connected the two people to know each other they realize the other's personalities are intriguing, they get to know the person better, and realize they love them enough to make the commitment to love them, regardless of feeling.
Also, there would be those people who would understand that relationships are not for them and not seek them out.
Nothing except death would allow anything to break the relationship.
And no, within these confines it would not be a dry, arranged marriage. You don't have to have an affair even in reality to have an exciting, enthralling, passionate, committed relationship. (I sure use the word 'committed' a lot, don't I?

What makes people dissatisfied with one another in the first place, or gives them an urge to cheat?

Cheating/urge to cheat:
Because, as already stated, the person wouldn't base this on feeling, they would take a stand on their relationship because of thinking (we both know feelings are too erratic to put any stock in them.) And therefore if, for a while, they didn't live in heaven with their spouse, they would push through it and analyze it and try even harder. Because the relationship can't just end because you 'feel' like it.

How does eliminating that affect how we view love in our society?

It makes it more pure; something of substance and worth instead of an old shirt we can cast off whenever we 'feel' like it.

Do we get rid of cheating, or do we get rid of people caring about cheating?

We get rid of the cheating. Because turning our backs on the problem only makes it worse. Like with cancer. You can ignore that lump on your body, but if you don't go to the doctor soon enough it may be too late.

Do we just make everybody polyamorous and throw the concepts of monogamy and cheating out the window and totally restructure society?

No, we most definitely do not make everybody polyamorous. (Think of the health issues, the mental issues, the physical issues!!!!!)
Yes, we have to restructure society, but within limits. Rules make boundaries, safe havens. And there need to be consequences when we stray out from under the bridges (aka rules.)

That's where this answer gets fun!

I started grinning when I saw how complex you answer was.

Also, I enjoy the picture in your signature.

Hahahahahaha, me too. Only now, I have to go try it.

And I'm sorry I'm long winded. I think I got carried away. A bit.

Perfectly alright, as long as you're logical (which you are.)

Thank you for this brilliant opportunity...it's always nice to know rational, analytical people are out there on these forums and it's what keeps me coming back.

 

[missjayelle]

I would change that half the people in the world don't get a decent education... I would make education accessible to everyone. I believe that all of the problems in the world come from lack of education - hunger, poverty, AIDS, overpopulation, climate change, war... I think that if there were some sort of universal education, there would be less problems in the world

 

[Shrubber]

"And no, within these confines it would not be a dry, arranged marriage. You don't have to have an affair even in reality to have an exciting, enthralling, passionate, committed relationship. (I sure use the word 'committed' a lot, don't I? "
Yea, I was functioning in a hypothetical situation where we don't have perfect wisdom and were all ok with one another and would be happy no matter what, in which case we wouldn't care who we ended up with and arranged marriages would be fine. Although I guess I shouldn't have used "dry", since the fact that we have potential for a good relationship with everyone doesn't necessarily mean we would value a current built-up relationship less.

Q: If someone does not experience physical/sexual attraction to somebody else in your scenario, is there still somehow a potential for an emotional relationship? (Yes, that exists.)

"Cheating/urge to cheat:
Because, as already stated, the person wouldn't base this on feeling, they would take a stand on their relationship because of thinking (we both know feelings are too erratic to put any stock in them.) And therefore if, for a while, they didn't live in heaven with their spouse, they would push through it and analyze it and try even harder. Because the relationship can't just end because you 'feel' like it."
Although in absolute-wisdom scenario this doesn't happen? Or is it that we-have-absolute-wisdom-but-shit-still-happens-but-it-will-eventually-work-out?
Do you think this applies to relationships the way they are now in current human nature stuff?

And, because I debate anything: possibly because I like to constantly upend my own ideas and keep proving myself wrong, but my thoughts and beliefs are sometimes as erratic as my emotions (although I'm not that emotional). It's not the changeability of emotions that deprives them of value, but that there's no system, like logic, to filter through and have everybody arrive at the same conclusion. You can't put feelings in a sieve and pick out the sound and unsound ones like you can with thoughts/ideas.

"It makes it more pure; something of substance and worth instead of an old shirt we can cast off whenever we 'feel' like it."
But what determines whether a relationship is "pure"? Isn't it just that it fits our ideals and preferences for a relationship? So if we switch those ideals and preferences about...

"We get rid of the cheating. Because turning our backs on the problem only makes it worse. Like with cancer. You can ignore that lump on your body, but if you don't go to the doctor soon enough it may be too late."
But what IS the problem? People do math problems, and that's totally awesome, but if you have to start hurting somebody to do math problems, then all of a sudden it's an issue. We wouldn't care about getting cancer checked out if it didn't have any adverse effects. So if we make people ok with cheating somehow, then would cheating really be "bad"?

"No, we most definitely do not make everybody polyamorous. (Think of the health issues, the mental issues, the physical issues!!!!!)"
Didn't think of that, thank you. Although hopefully if we have gotten to the point where we can change human nature, we can cure STDs And if we can restructure human nature, we could get rid of any reuslting mental issues by taking away that need/want for the One Relationship To Rule Them All.

"Yes, we have to restructure society, but within limits. Rules make boundaries, safe havens. And there need to be consequences when we stray out from under the bridges (aka rules.)"
Wait, so what are you saying here? That we need to use limits/rules in our reconstruction of human nature (bwahaha)?

"I started grinning when I saw how complex you answer was."
And only one issue! On to war and religion and civil rights!

"Perfectly alright, as long as you're logical (which you are.) Thank you for this brilliant opportunity...it's always nice to know rational, analytical people are out there on these forums and it's what keeps me coming back."
Oh, being called logical just made my day *blush*
I rarely get the chance to actually discuss something, so I hope you don't mind another longish response. Feel free to ignore me, I don't get offended.

 

[DeepBreakfast]

In general I wish people would revere nature more. Take care of the environment and such.

When I was young I used to obsess over science fiction books that would illustrate future society as having transportation above ground (a monorail type system) to free up space for nature preserves. Unfortunately, with as much as we overbreed, the beautiful nature conservancies would eventually be overrun with humans again.

I guess another wish is that we would not overbreed. Less people would mean more for everyone.

 

[VoiceOfSilver]

@Shrubber

First off, no, I did not mean to ignore you, I simply didn't get on for a super long time because I've been so busy. Lame excuse, but it's the truth...
Anyways, on to the debate!

I have a question to ask you before I quote your questions and answer them and ask more questions and the question is: If we took away human's instinctive right-wrong or, as you may call it, a conscious, if we took it away, what would be right? And what would be wrong? Cheating would be perfectly okay, killing people would be okay, basically everything would be okay.

But that completely strips us of our right as humans to choose to make the right choice, or the wrong one. And if we don't have a choice, then what are we? We're animals. Because animals follow their instincts- eat, kill, prey upon, hide from predators, and choose a mate.

However as humans, we have this choice, but without it we're animals.

But what determines whether a relationship is "pure"? Isn't it just that it fits our ideals and preferences for a relationship? So if we switch those ideals and preferences about...

Pure relationship outside of marriage in a nutcase: no sex, no cheating, building each other up and respecting each other and loving the other person enough to wait for sex.

Wait, so what are you saying here? That we need to use limits/rules in our reconstruction of human nature (bwahaha)?

Absolutely.

Let's keep the ball rolling, and on to war or religion or civil rights- you pick! Sorry this is a bit short, I should've added more but I'm a bit tired right and my brain is a little to fused to do anything but read. :3

 

[Owfin]

Corruption. What good does it do? I can't think of anything.

 

[JadenAria]

I would change our very Nature to make it pure, not ignorant and hateful.

My question, however, is what one thing would you change in the world?

I completely agree with changing human nature. I feel completely disgusted to even be considered part of the human race right now.

Even though it's impossible to change human nature, that's not to say that there's nothing I (we/anyone) can do about it. I do think that I can make conscious choices that go against human nature & in doing so I will rise above it (if that makes any sense?). Kind of a 'human nature will not control me, I will control it' sort of thing.

 

[Kyrielle]

Hmm, I would change the way in which humans invent things. I would change the tendency for humans to create the quick and dirty, one-way system where there is considerable waste. Instead, humans would place more focus on cyclical systems in which there is very little by-product and any by-product is easily used by another part of the system.

I suppose in a way, this would end up changing the way humans view each other as well. A cyclical system in relationships and business values equity and transparency such that nothing in the relationship is wasted.

 

[Coburn]

I'd like everyone to be human calculators. No emotion-- just pure logic.