[Closed] Humanity 2.0

a bit like brexit for the UK a new beginning

Some animals will always be more equal than others. Implementation of the ideology is where that sort of thing falls down, just ask Mr Marx. So as mickmcd says it's just like Brexit, a misguided dream that never delivers what's promised.

Whats wrong with religion ?

Plenty of people believe in it, why banish it ?

I'd agree to 2.0 being more "intelligence based" but dismissing beliefs because you may not like them seems draconian..

2.0.1 would be out within a week.

mickmcd - Member

a bit like brexit for the UK a new beginning

I hope your dog gets gonorrhoea.

Whats wrong with religion ?

would the Home Edition be any good or would you need to be on Enterprise to enjoy life

I think we'll bypass 2.0 and go straight for extinction. Only then will the world be a truly greater place.

I hope your dog gets gonorrhoea.

sadly we lost jasper a few weeks ago, many thanks though

Perhaps putting an end to an uncontrolled free market economy might be better?

I'm with rene....Humanity minus humans would be ideal.

mickmcd - Member

sadly we lost jasper a few weeks ago

Was it the gonorrhoea? 🙁

Maybe we can all be free from gonorrhoea on our post Brexit island.

V2 will come with the singularity. V2 will have as much in common with us as we do with plankton, so it's a fair bet religion won't be an issue.

Tell me again how

humanity accepts it generates far more harm than good.

When 84% of humanity are religious?

Then we can discuss how your anti-theistic government/s can take it away from them. Seeing as the largest single threat to humanity is climate change and the attendant crises of food security, dislocation, increased migration, numerous catastrophes and epidemics...etc etc .. I'd think it was about time we 'got together' and loooed after the planet, ourselves and each other?

(Am not personally religious btw)

I thought we were already on 2.0, according to this documentary I saw on Noah with Russell Crowe.

Then we can discuss how your anti-theistic government can take it away from them.

When we reboot, we'll have enough money to educate people instead. Religion won't be invented.

When 84% of humanity are religious?

Edit: unfortunately this comes with an inability to reproduce, which is a challenge.

You think if you do away with religion humans won't have anything to fall out over? Have you [i]met[/i] people? You'd have to do away with religion, neighbours, parking, wheelie bins, tattoos ...

When we reboot, we'll have enough money to eradicate people instead. Religion won't be invented.

super

The problem with religion was that it was a very effective man-made construct to create some form of social structure and rules with teeth to force people to conform and live together in relative harmony, if not constant fear. This was necessary when everybody was uneducated, wasn't sure the sun would come up every day and couldn't understand things like eclipses and natural disasters and looked to their 'elders' to explain things - which of course they couldn't so blamed it all on some supernatural creator with some form of plan too great and clever we mere mortals shouldn't even question it. The problem is as we've developed and become more educated and now can explain a lot of these things, we've not grown out of religion.

Unfortunately with humanity 2.0 religion will still be necessary, or something very similar. We did have a few goes at religion remember. We didn't arrive at Christianity straight way. The ROman's had their, the Greeks had their etc. and it was honed and finessed until we have arrived at the current crop of religions. So the big question is, in the absence of religion, how do you control a huge population of uneducated and poor peasants?

I suspect despite best intentions and best efforts, a Humanity 2.0 would follow very familiar and similar course to Humanity 1.0.

But really though I don't think humanity 1.0 is doing too bad. We've only really been developing for a very short time, and all of today's problems will be dealt with. We've already dealt with the hole in the ozone layer within a generation, we'll deal with global warming (or at least the man-made caused part of it), we'll deal with the plastic issue, pollution and a whole host of other natural threats such as disease, natural disasters and other things. Once our politicians sort themselves out and start dealing with the worlds political issues, which they will.....eventually, then the world will be a much better place.

Seeing as the largest single threat to humanity is climate change and the attendant crises of food security, dislocation, increased migration, numerous catastrophes and epidemics...etc etc

Totally agree, see my last point.

So the big question is, in the absence of religion, how do you control a huge population of uneducated and poor peasants?

Our main issue is that our development has outpaced evolution. In the last few hundred years we’ve created a world in which we’re actually no longer that well adapted to.

All the stuff like religion, the concept of countries etc, it’s easy to see that it can be improved upon now we’re more enlightened, but we’re ****ed to do anything about it because our genes still drive behaviours which mean we’ll never really get there.

So the big question is, in the absence of religion, how do you control a huge population of uneducated and poor peasants?

That would all be worth having a go at wouldn't it?

Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare. I'm entirely for peace and fraternity between all peoples, but there is nothing of love in your proposal; only de-humanising, inorganic legislative structure.

For those reasons, and many others, I'm out.

World leaders all agree to eradicate religion as it's no longer relevant in an age where humanity accepts it generates far more harm than good.

In which case, world leaders would be utterly deluded because they wouldn't actually be considering facts, but rather the groundless opinions of some post-modern, white IT guys on STW.

[img] [/img]

Well, Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky, along with Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot gave it a bloody good try, which seemed to involve simply eradicating the poor and uneducated peasants.
Could be worth looking at again, perhaps Communism v2.1?

In The Encyclopedia of Wars, Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod wrote: ‘Wars have always arisen, and arise today, from territorial disputes, military rivalries, conflicts of ethnicity and strivings for commercial and economic advantage, and they have always depended on and depend on today, pride, prejudice, coercion, envy, cupidity, competitiveness, and a sense of injustice’.

Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod researched the history of warfare for their recently published three-volume work, The Encyclopedia of Wars. Covering every major war, rebellion, and revolution from 3500 BC to the present, they listed 1763 wars and found that only 123 of these can be classified as involving a religious cause—less than seven percent of all wars.

Similarly, a five-volume work published in 2012, The Encyclopedia of War, edited by Gordon Martel, concluded that a mere six percent of the wars it listed could be labelled religious wars.

You might want to look at the state of the middle east before pretending religion isn't the cause of endless misery.

I'm not pretending anything. I simply cited a couple of authoritative sources. Argue with the people who did the research and calculations.

While the Middle East might be our oil-based obsession, there are more regions in the world than that, which, believe it or not, may contribute to the total number of wars.

You might want to look at the state of the middle east to see that [b]western imposed borders on nomadic cultures, tribes armed by us to disrupt our enemies then turning against us when no longer strategically useful to our goals, oil based land grabs and power vacuums from western meddling upsetting delicate balance[/b] are the cause of endless misery.

FTFY

andyrm x 10000.

SaxonRider - Member

I'm not pretending anything. I simply cited a couple of authoritative sources. Argue with the people who did the research and calculations.

A quick google suggests their criteria for religious war is debatable. I'm not sure I'm interpreting the wiki page correctly but they seem to be dismissing out of hand most religious wars before the 17th centrury because up to that point religion was used as a justification or an explanation, but not necessarily the primary motivator.

I may well be getting the wrong end of the stick there, but regardless, are we dismissing wars where religion is merely a tool for motivation, justification or incitement as nothing to do with religion?

If leaders have ulterior motives for war, but use religion to justify it does that mean religion is blameless?

I'm sure religious war is probably a 20 page thread on it's own, nevermind a tangent on this strange thread.

World leaders all agree to eradicate religion as it's no longer relevant in an age where humanity accepts it generates far more harm than good.

Sounds like Authoritarianism. So you would be replacing one god, with the state or a human god.

[i]"The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it. They want to turn the world into a sickroom. And once they get humanity strapped to the operating table, they operate on it with an axe." [/i] -
Eric Hoffer

And the less religious a country is the more advanced, civilised and nice it is.

*sigh* More lazy, tired, boring half arsed opinion, you are conflating correlation with causation. Religiosity drops as a response to improved living standards as religion is often used as a way of coping with austere environments.