As amazing as an atheistic society would be, I would easily settle for "actual, real, true separation of church and state, worldwide." Which I agree, "dream on."
As amazing as an atheistic society would be, I would easily settle for "actual, real, true separation of church and state, worldwide." Which I agree, "dream on."
Why care? Climate science has nothing to do with religion, and yet there is a staunch group of deniers out there gumming up the works. You are never going to separate people from their beliefs - whether rational or irrational - so who cares whether it's FSM or dying polar bears? I don't agree with reality TV and would lobby hard for the separation of state and professional sports and would probably take a dozen rabid Christians over a dozen rabid sports fans, but I don't see us mulching Raider Nation or the church, so whatever. I don't think what people believe in has anything to do with anything - the only important thing is for them to believe in their stupid things in such a way that you don't need to defend the stupid things you believe in. A world of atheism doesn't solve anything, it just changes the conflict. Zero sum game.
Once we have AI implants to monitor and control us, everything should be fine.
Get that weak shit off my track
Frankly, world peace won't happen until there is a non-abstract outside threat to the entire world. Basically we need aliens to be a threat to our existence. Until then we'll kill each other and be greedy as fuck in the process.
I could see us having some major changes in the world once climate change gets really bad, but for now its "small" changes that "don't impact me" so no one really cares.
Agreed... and striking the balance between "world threat that unifies" and "world threat that fractures" is going to be tough. The threat needs to be big enough to be real, and quantified well enough for us to understand success comes by global sacrifice and banding together. If there's any hope "me and my guns in the hills" is a reasonable solution, it'll go downhill fast.
Ultimately I don't care much. I only need another 50 or so years out of this rock, then I relinquish my interest.
From Zygmunt Bauman's "Am I my brother's keeper?" Essay.And so we are back to square one. After a century or so of the happy marital cohabitation between ethics and rational-instrumental reason, the second partner opted out of the marriage and ethics remained alone in charge of the once shared household. And when alone, ethics is vulnerable and does not find it easy to stand its ground on its own.
The question 'Am I my brother's keeper?', which not long ago was thought to be answered once and for all and so seldom was heard, is asked again, more vociferously and belligerently by the day. And people wishing for a 'yes' answer try desperately, yet with no evident success, to make it sound convincing in the cool and businesslike language of interests. What they should do instead is to reassert, boldly and explicitly, the ethical reason for the welfare state - the only reason the welfare state needs to justify its presence in a humane and civilized society.
Good read, if anyone has the time.
acket.
Per "the world is a worse place mentality," a statement I STRONGLY disagree.
Please watch
https://vimeo.com/128373915