Real World vs What we'd like to see

From my point of view, many of these discussions are based on two modes of thought:

1) The world as it is
2) The world as we'd like it to be

If we can't agree on #1, I'm not quite sure how we'll ever get to #2.

In keeping with the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) method, I'd like to break down some basics:

a) The U.S. (as is every country) is self interested. Our people before others, our needs before others.
b) The stronger the nation, the more able to ensure their interests are met.
c) The process by which any country tries to keep it's interests at heart can be ugly, mean, and destructive.
d) If any country does not look out for itself, there will be others taking advantage of it.
e) As of right now, there are limited resources in the world.

I'm basing the above on history. Any history of any culture.

Now, I would argue that a country's 'interest' is probably the most difficult to define, and at times, has been the central cause for needless death and loss of freedom. I would further point out, that many times, an individual or group of individuals shaped/warped/created national 'interests' that were actually not needed/warranted.

The world as it is, seems to state those countries with the largest means at its disposal are 'free' to decide what constitutes their interest. To help balance that out, we have world political/economical/diplomatic outlets. The world as it is, states plainly that those outlets are mostly useless against countries with the means at their disposal to get what they want anyway.

Before I go on, what am I missing? (keep it just to the topic at hand since I'm not talking about how we want the world to be, just yet)

"Yomm" wrote:

a) The U.S. (as is every country) is self interested. Our people before others, our needs before others.
b) The stronger the nation, the more able to ensure their interests are met.
c) The process by which any country tries to keep it''s interests at heart can be ugly, mean, and destructive.
d) If any country does not look out for itself, there will be others taking advantage of it.
e) As of right now, there are limited resources in the world.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Before I go on, what am I missing? (keep it just to the topic at hand since I''m not talking about how we want the world to be, just yet)

What happens when two nations conflict over the ABCDEs. Such as, when one nation pursuing its E comes into conflict with another nation afraid their pulling a D so they accuse the first nation of committing a C.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Yomm" wrote:

a) The U.S. (as is every country) is self interested. Our people before others, our needs before others.
b) The stronger the nation, the more able to ensure their interests are met.
c) The process by which any country tries to keep it''s interests at heart can be ugly, mean, and destructive.
d) If any country does not look out for itself, there will be others taking advantage of it.
e) As of right now, there are limited resources in the world.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Before I go on, what am I missing? (keep it just to the topic at hand since I''m not talking about how we want the world to be, just yet)

What happens when two nations conflict over the ABCDEs. Such as, when one nation pursuing its E comes into conflict with another nation afraid their pulling a D so they accuse the first nation of committing a C.

[See B]

But what if in the pursuit of E, the country (could be anybody) loses sight of A and uneccessarily commits C, forcing other countries to defend their A and making sure D doesn''t happen by committing a bunch of Cs against the country whose people are broke because the leaders forgot about E?

Being the idealistic and hopelessly leftist tree-hugger that I''m not inaccurately characterized to be, it won''t surprise you to find that I''m not even willing to give up that common ground. This''s ok, because I''m still a pretty easy guy to get along with.

You see, I refuse to accept that an American life is of any greater value than a French, Iraqi, Nepali, Japanese, Libyan, Guatamalan, or Inuit. I will not apply value on humanity based on which fictional/political boundary it manages to fall within. And thus, I reject the validity of point A. It may be ''the way the world works'' (tm), but I''m not going to support it as a foundation for common ground.

It''s been my long held belief that only religion is a more widely applied excuse for our instictive lust to kill people than the illusion of nationality.

But he asked that if this was the way the world is, not the way you''d like it to be. In the real world, the death of 10 to preserve the interests of 1000 is seen by many of those in power as a good thing.

And that''s just the problem Rat Boy. People go around all the time saying ""Boy, I''d like these wonderful things to happen, but I live in the Real World."" Living in the Real World is nothing but an excuse to hedge your bet and rationalize taking the easy way out. So people create this false distinction between what we should be doing and what we are actually willing to do. It''s an excuse for hypocrisy in my book. So, what we end up with it a whole bunch of people who say, ""Sure, I''d love for there to be peace, but I can''t figure out a way to do it right off hand, so I''m going to live in the Real World where it''s a good idea to kill those people instead."" So, no. I don''t talk about that distinction either.

If I believe in something I''m not willing to rationalize not doing it because it''s hard.

Hmmm, Elysium, you`re both right and wrong, I guess (just like all the others in this or any other forum )
IMO, you`re right saying that one should not seek the easy way, however, we DO live in the world where some prefer easy ways and quite often they`re wheeling. So you`ll end up searching for compromises.

Yomm, Living In The Real World involves meeting people like Elysium as well. I`m sure that together you can work it out

(I hope at least someone will understand what I was willing to say. Feel kinda dizzy today.)

"Elysium" wrote:

And that''s just the problem Rat Boy. People go around all the time saying ""Boy, I''d like these wonderful things to happen, but I live in the Real World."" Living in the Real World is nothing but an excuse to hedge your bet and rationalize taking the easy way out. So people create this false distinction between what we should be doing and what we are actually willing to do. It''s an excuse for hypocrisy in my book. So, what we end up with it a whole bunch of people who say, ""Sure, I''d love for there to be peace, but I can''t figure out a way to do it right off hand, so I''m going to live in the Real World where it''s a good idea to kill those people instead."" So, no. I don''t talk about that distinction either.

If I believe in something I''m not willing to rationalize not doing it because it''s hard.

Peace doesn''t mean the absence of war.

"Elysium" wrote:

Living in the Real World is nothing but an excuse to hedge your bet and rationalize taking the easy way out.

Careful here. I''m taking great pains to keep it simple and basic at first. My observations are based in fact. While somewhat cocky of me to suggest I have narrowed down mankind''s entire existence into a pithy message post on the internet, I think I''ve been able to whittle down the basics.

We''ll get to ''what can be changed in the world order'' thoughts in a little while, but for now, I''m just trying to gain a consensus that this is the way the world works.

And Most, I certainly understand that diffrent people think/wish/want diffrent things, but I''m starting this whole thing by trying to lay down basic facts.

Heck, two people couldn''t even survive in Eden without messing it all up (if you want to go that route, which I don''t).

Again, I''m looking for the most basic foundations of what is not what it should be, how it could be, why it isn''t, and what you personally hope for.

I''m a semi-history fanboi and I''m constantly amazed of what went on behind the scenes that explains the ''greater good'' of any event (ex. the civil war being fought for economic reasons the agriculture vs industry, rather then freedom for slaves; the illegalization of pot due to the fear of South Western states that Mexicans immigrants were taking American jobs during a depression, rather then the health/criminal concerns of the drug). I mean pick an important event, and you''re going to find some reason that really doesn''t jibe with the excuse, yet makes perfect sense (assination of Arch Duke Ferdinand starting WWII? Puuulease)

Your help in picking out other basic tendencies of the world as it is, would prove most helpful for furthering this discussion. I''m asking you to step aside from personal beliefs, to throw away any bias you have, and to look at the world as it is.Not make any judgement calls on it, but try to scienctificly lay down the basics. Otherwise, I''m going to assume, what I have so far, is correct (by this forum standards) and go from there.

Well, yes, I like what you`re saying Yomm.

Talking about how world really works, we should add also so called ""tree-hugger`s"" element anyway.
Not because most people wheeling would really think in that way, but ""tree-huggers"" are generally better liked by media, which is important element in decision making.

Hmm, did I say something wrong?

Clarifying what I said above, it would mean that I`d like added point like this:

*) gap between what world is like and what it should be like is filled with media ""reality"", however, we should remember that media also follows the points listed above simply not globally.

(hmm, is it just me or its really so that my every next post just mixes things up even more today?)

Ah, I see Yomm. I think I read that as asking something else. Of course, now I have to think about it for a while.

AND

Peace doesn''t mean the absence of war.

Yes, so people keep trying to tell me. I think World War 2 might be a good example of that, but nothing recently.

Peace doesn''t mean the absence of war.

Dictionary.com has this to say about peace.

peace - The absence of war or other hostilities.
An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities.
Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations: roommates living in peace with each other.
Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace.
Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind.

Hm. Did you drink after you looked that word up?

No, you really don''t want to know what we have to do everytime Ulairi comes up with a word we need to look up.

Well, I know we are trying to keep it simple Yomm but there is a wrench to throw.

A-E can change based on long term/short term plans. This complicates things but is still the Real World (tm) and not what we''d like to see.

a) Sometimes others needs come first in the short term so that we reap the benefits long term.
b) Weaker nations can achieve their national interests with impunity so long as they stay under our radar.
c) The process by which any country tries to keep it''s interests at heart can be ugly, mean, and destructive.
d) Looking out for yourself short term can cause others to take advantage of you long term and vice versa.
e) Resources change. Water, air and Food are the only constants. As long as we dont screw things up too much we have nearly limitless supplies. I know there is a lot of starving in the world but we do have the ability to feed the world''s needs. The other resources fall into a short term/long term conflict aswell. How long has oil been an important resource? How many more years do you think it will continue to be?