Quote:
Originally Posted by thommy
sounds quite logic even when i think the statements and views of the founding fathers have to be seen in the consensus of this time when the world was not such a small ping pong ball and continents where far away.
even the bible makes sense when you read it in the consensus of the era.
but even when all that would not change in the meantime and the status quo is just a result of centuries of neglect - what is the way out?
throwing the world back into the dark eras of war and disrespect of human rights can not be the answer.
for my opinion the FIRST step is education.
i know this is easier said as done because it will not be easy or even possible to bring a balance in the worldwide education.
but letīs ask that question vise versa:
can dumbs resolve the problems what were made by dumbs?
or is there a bigger chance when at least one side is the intelligent and educated - educated and smart enough to know that they need to have a lot patience with the dumbs?
this is my biggest concern in all what happens in the moment when dumbs want to deal with dumbs and that can not lead to success. it leads to the same thing what always happens when dumbs try to force dumbs - HATE and WAR
|
Well, I would add that even a very smart person in the position of power can make a dumb decision, especially if he either 1) caters to some special interest groups 2) ignores important and essential information, such as history and human nature, and tries to build an utopia.
"throwing the world back into the dark eras of war and disrespect of human rights can not be the answer."
I am afraid this is exactly what will happen if people are denied the freedom of association. If they cannot live among people like themselves, if they are denied the chance to feel at home in their own homeland. Then there's just two options, flee (self segregate) or fight. The real breaking point may come once the dominant, original culture is relegated to a minority.
Note that in pretty much every multi racial or multi cultural society - people in general already practice separation themselves, churches in US for example are from 90 pct. always of one particular race. Neighborhoods change all the time as one culture moves in and another one moves out because they no longer feel comfortable. Detroit is a prime example.
Quite a famous research regarding this is "E Pluribus Unum" by Robert Putnam from Harvard. He analyzed 40 different communities all across the US, from a community in rural South Dakota that is very homogenous, all the way to the extremely diverse neighborhoods in LA.
He wanted to prove that diversity is strength as a mantra that is repeated over and over today. What he found out is exactly the opposite, the more diversity the less trust, the less community activity. the less trust in the local government, the less social life, more disconnection, more isolation and discomfort. The author was so disappointed with the results that that research was not supposed to be published.
The most diverse societies in terms of tribes, nations, religion are always the most prone to conflict, war and violence. Countries like Lebanon, former Yugoslavia, at any given time a major part of Africa, Middle East, up until recently also central America etc.
Also note that the concept of human rights and democracy is pretty much a western invention. There are cultures that are built on a completely different set of ethics and customs and prefer it that way.
Importing such very much guarantees importing parallel societies and conflict, not to mention that one is not, never has been, and never ever will be able to bring all cultures and ethnics to all produce the same outcomes (in terms of education and prosperity). Not even the Soviet Union was able to achieve that.