The World Today

Ideally, after the passing of such a crisis, we could take advantage of the removal of today’s society and reshape it in a better way. In order to do this, we must first address what is wrong with the world today.

A list seems to be in order:

  1. Intolerance
    • of religious differences
    • of sexual orientation
    • of gender identity
  2. Inequality
    • of sex
    • of race
  3. Short-sightedness
    • Since the dawn of agriculture, humankind has made decisions based upon their own survival, and then their own comfort, and then their own wealth, without a thought of the long term consequences. This, ironically, is what leads to the future disaster of which I speak.
    • In order to avoid repeating this particular bit of history, we must make decisions with the environment in mind, and we must consider what will happen to society in the long run.
  4. Selfishness
    • It is human nature to look out for oneself first and foremost. This is instinct- it cannot be overridden and perhaps it should not be. However, once one’s own survival is ensured, too often our next instinct is to ensure for our own comfort.
    • This is the root of many problems we face today. What I am suggesting is not of a communistic flavor; rather, to teach people to want to give, to realize that such excessive luxuries are wasteful and can easily be detrimental not only to the environment and your fellow human beings, but also to yourself.
  5. Materialism
    • it seems that materialism and selfishness are quite intertwined, as my thoughts on this seem to have already been addressed in the previous bullet. Nevertheless, I will elaborate a bit.
    • It is an ingrained part of out society to want physical things. There is a pull in the possession of these items, a status in ownership. It is incredibly excessive and this desire is used to manipulate many into passing one’s wealth to the manufacturer of these items. Money, in its own right, is greatest of these yearned for items.

On inequality:

In this reformed society, everyone would be born equal: not just under the law, but as a mindset. They are equal as people at birth- this should not be taken to mean that one person cannot be smarter or stronger than another, or that one cannot be better off economically. It simply means that a male is not more valued than a female simply because of sex (as an example. This is applicable to all other areas used today to assign value).

On intolerance:

Similarly, predefined notions of who should love who, and what we should believe will lose their societal pull. Females may end up with males, and that would be considered normal, but on the same level of normality would be her ending up with another of the same sex. It would be widely accepted that sometimes individuals’ bodies do not match up with who they are, inside. In a sense, the whole of the population would be pansexual- a sexual orientation in which the only judgements made of a potential partner would be whether or not you loved them.

Mindset is quite possibly the most important factor in the outcome of an event. I have learned this thoroughly, having observed it’s effects within myself. As I grow to expect more and more from myself, I am able to accomplish these higher goals without putting significantly more work than I had previously. Therefore, I believe that the most important thing in shaping this society would be to practice a certain mindset, rather than attempting to force change on it’s inhabitants. As history has taught us time and time again, when people are forced into a certain way of thinking and acting, it never ends out in peace.

Obviously, what is listed here cannot encompass each and every problem we are faced with today. Anything to add would be welcome. And, as always, please argue with me.

15 thoughts on “The World Today

  1. Isn’t there a contradiction between tolerance of different sexualities/genders and expecting the entire population to become pansexual? I don’t think it’s true that every single person who is not open to sexual experimentation, has a low libido or isn’t interested in non-heterosexual sex/relationships behaves that way entirely because of prejudices. It seems that just like expecting everyone to have conservative ethics when it comes to relationships and sex is confining and bad, it would be equally bad to expect everyone to have wide-open preferences. Wouldn’t respectful coexistence between people with natural low-libidos and people with high-libidos be better than wanting to make an entire society homogeneous? I’m speaking as someone who does have wide-open preferences in sex/relationships here. I don’t mind if people have different and much more limited preferences than me as long as they don’t enforce their preferences on me.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It would be less that everyone had the same sexual orientation and more that it would be irregular for no one to be in a relationship with members of the same sex. For example, nowadays, if you had a friend that has only ever dated members of the opposite sex who started dating a member of their own sex, people would be confused, like “Wait, I thought you were straight”.
      My thought was that this wouldn’t happen- some people may be attracted to only members of their own sex or only members of the opposite or a mixture of both, but none of this would be particularly irregular. That is what I meant by everyone, in essence, being pansexual.


      1. I agree with how you explained the term anyway. I wouldn’t want a new society that doesn’t allow for a complete plurality of genders and sexualities, both towards the non-hetero and non-binary and the hetero and binary sides of the spectrum. I don’t know if you’ve ever read Huxley’s Brave New World, I consider it an eye-opening fictional example of how a society can be both completely hedonistic and inhumanly totalitarian at the same time. My views were definitely towards making everyone pansexual before I read that book years ago.

        What about class? Don’t you think that it is as important if more so than all other points that would need fixing? We can still easily end up with a society where everyone is equally treated in respect to their genders, sexualities, races and other factors but is still fragmented into producers and consumers, capital and wage-slaves, haves and have-nots. It probably boils down to whether you think that capitalism is inherently flawed or not and subsequently, if it’s worth keeping around with significant improvements. (To state my position, I personally advocate political systems that are far more close to the Athenian direct democracy with an equally democratic economic system along them plus the improvements you suggest here.)

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I haven’t read it, no; I’ll add it to my list 🙂
        As for class, my thought was that once society became less materialistic, capitalism too would diminish, thus greatly lessening the socio-economic gap. We really have to be careful with this so as not to tread on the grounds of Communism, which has never really worked and likely can never work. Some people will always be better of then others,or have more.
        Could you go further into detail about your ideas of a democratic economic system? I’m intrigued.


  2. By the way, I think that humans being selfish isn’t so much a real instinct than it is one of the foundational myths of capitalism. It’s mostly an idea derived from Game Theory on how humans should act for maximum benefit but actually, social psychology has shown that humans very frequently act in a way that maximises social benefit rather than personal, and that can be explained by the hundreds of thousands of years we spent evolving in primitive conditions that required collective behaviors instead of individualistic. If there’s one thing that somewhat sustains my waning faith in humanity and fuels my hope that we won’t end up destroying both ourselves and our planet is that we still have those traits, even if they’re almost extinct by now.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s a great point. When I wrote that, I was envisioning more of a life or death situation, in the sort of chaotic aftermath of a societal collapse. Perhaps emphasis should instead be placed on nurturing those traits.


      1. I agree that we should protect and nurture those traits. But here’s an observation on what you said. I have noticed some sort of ideological tendency, centered mostly in North America, of people from all kind of backgrounds, expecting a chaotic societal collapse. Could you explain why you think it’s going to be a sudden and chaotic affair?

        The way I see it, this concept has strong religious overtones resulting from the expectation of the Christian apocalypse and I don’t know, post-apocalyptic imagery from popular film? From studying the history of the decline of the Roman Empire, it was far more a case of gradual stagnation and decline of centralising and connecting political structures instead of complete chaos, and it took a couple of centuries to conclude. The further away you were from the center of power, the quicker the break-down of Roman political structures which ended up in de-Romanising those areas. I can’t predict how it’s going to happen and if it’s going to happen soon but I’m sceptical of the whole, complete collapse and chaos model. I think that if there’s going to be any chaos, it’s going to happen locally in the periphery and not everywhere at the same time.


      2. I was basing my time frame off the accelerating degeneration of the environment. The number of years projected before the planet is so drastically changed is 14 (2030). That’s soon, relatively speaking, and many people nowadays still insist that global warming is a hoax. People have the money and resources to do something about it, but they won’t because it’s too expensive. Certainly there will be a build up toward the collapse- it won’t just hit us like a bomb- but it will likely be rather sudden.
        I’ve been studying certain historical figures recently, and have come across the opinion that today’s society cannot last, and is destined to collapse; I’ve found myself inclined to agree.


      3. Rereading the end of your comment, I do agree with you that it won’t happen everywhere at the same time- I was viewing it from a historical standpoint. 200 years in the future, a period of 10 or 15 years in which we fall into disarray would be considered about at the same time.


  3. WordPress has a pretty limiting comment structure. Oh well.

    Regarding class. Communism is an umbrella term that encompasses all sorts of socialist currents from the 19th century onwards. It’s an extremely maligned term, not just by opponents but proponents as well. Most North Americans usually speak of USSR when they say communism. I don’t think that we can honestly say that even that flavor failed in all its aspects. Can we really say that it failed economically? It made Russia a global superpower in the short years between 1918 and 1950 and allowed them to win against the Nazis. It ended after two successive coups in 1990 and 1992 and not socio-economic collapse. A good argument would be that if it was a successful system, the people would have resisted the coups and protected the system. But most coups are sudden and most successful ones meet little to no resistance. The Chilean coup in 1973 for example met with little to no resistance and that was despite massive support for Allende. Even the Greek Fascist coup in 1967 wasn’t met with any resistance. Did it fail democratically? Despite the despotism, they still held representative elections which says more about the illusion of representative democracy in general and not the Russian model in particular. I agree that it failed in humanitarian terms with all the totalitarian abuses and the inability of withstanding dissent. But I’d still say that while being terrible, this was a widespread phenomenon during the Cold War throughout the West in varying degrees and not something that can be singularly attributed to USSR statist communism outside the global context. In any case, I don’t really support statist models.

    If you discard the massive propaganda surrounding the subject and go back to Marx’s original marxism, the second level of development of a new society is not a statist construct like the USSR but a classless, stateless society of free agents. Besides never finding anyone who could adequately refute Marx’s labour theory of value which is central in the capitalist method of creating profit and makes the whole system inherently unjust, my own personal arguments in favor of something like that is that we have already been through it very successfully.

    Most primitive societies operate on collective principles that can easily be called proto-communist and most evidence from archaeology points to the conclusion that human societies during the mesolithic prehistory, as a broad rule, had the form of egalitarian, collective, sharing communities which only changed with the advent of agriculture and the introduction of the concept of private property, not in terms of personal property but in terms of exclusively owning and utilising land on a massive scale. We’ve spent more time in those proto-communist eras than the entire history of human civilisation from the time of the agricultural revolution to the present day. If anything, that form of organisation was pretty stable and goes hand in hand with those inherent social traits that we have.

    I don’t actively care about politics any more and I didn’t intend to talk about the subject under this particular identity but I guess Greeks are inherently drawn to politics or something and couldn’t resist the urge. But in any case, while I’m not actively trying to push any particular ideas, on a theoretical level, I’ve yet to see anyone completely refute them. Bury the concepts under propaganda and misinformation maybe, or deeply misunderstand them and refute strawmen instead of grappling with the actual arguments, even misunderstanding and misapplying all the principles, but other than cases like those, I don’t have any objective reason to not believe in their veracity.


    1. I don’t really have time to write a real response right now, but my thought was that Communism, societally, has never worked in practice because it’s never been able to truly uphold its ideas. Additionally, if one were to try to set up a society with a system close to Communism, it would be difficult because people generally dislike it.


      1. It’s a pretty complicated subject which has been made even more complicated by the whole thing having a massive negative stereotype attached to it. Since there really isn’t enough space in the comments, I could write a post over at my blog to detail exactly what I mean if you’re interested. That way I’ll be more able to cite sources too.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s