theology and american politics have few noticeable differences in the way they're discussed, from what i've seen
I am always fascinated by those that claim politics are 1 way in America, and oh so very adult/mature/wise almost everywhere else. Do tell.
There's no way to time machine back and tell the story again to find out, but I generally feel that grander movements in history are likely not linked to specific individuals. Whether a particular individual was in America at the time of the American Revolution likely would not have changed the fact that the Revolution happened or its outcome, tho it may have changed some individual battles/details. In China, no one really knows how many people died during the Three Kingdoms warring states period, but it still happened. Even the entirety of human existence thus far barely registers on the universal time scale and will likely not change the course even of our own solar system. Predicting future events is largely trying to figure out what are the random fluctuations that don't matter in the long-run, and which are the actual overall trends and cycles. That said, this doesn't mean what we do individually doesn't have an impact on each other, and in some ways the fact that it doesn't matter to the universal makes what we do MORE important, not LESS. The same thing that limits our perspective means that every moment we have with each other is important - because most likely, nothing else is going to care what we do except ourselves.
To have an impact on the universe, we must greatly advance our scientific knowledge. The alternative is as you said, perish without impact. What an individual can do is very little, unless you're a scientist. At a high level, all non scientists are cogs in the machine that keep scientists alive and working toward a future with space faring technology. There are some broken cogs that slow that progression, but humanity still progresses. Whether or not we progress fast enough will be for future generations to determine. The biggest way any of us non scientists can impact that progression is to raise children that value scientific endeavors. If that is done, each generation will focus more on science, which should allow technology to continue progressing faster each generation.
i'm not. i don't follow the politics of anywhere else. i presume the discussion is likely pretty close, hopefully with slightly less bipartisan idiocy, but hey. what i said is what i said. not much more.
Yes and no. Those individual battles and details are important. You can, of course, speculate that it would have been the same if that individual had been substituted. For example, instead of Benedict Arnold at the Battle of Saratoga, the battle could still have been won, possibly without the replacement leader becoming a traitor later in the war. But it's also true that the battle could have been lost, or won at much greater cost. It's level of success or failure might not have persuaded the French to ally with the Colonies, which was hugely important for the success of the Revolution. Even if the greater social push was for Revolution regardless of individuals like the Adams family (no, not THAT one, geez people), it would still take individuals taking action of some sort. The ultimate shape of it's results is also fine detail. It's possible that another General besides Washington would have taken the Crown. It's possible they'd have never been offered it. The greater part of the American government today however was determined by a group of individuals. While it is obviously not through their effort and will alone (the Colonies could have rejected the new government for example), the fine details have helped to shape the world, along with the efforts of many other individuals across most/all nations. And it still had an impact. Our ignorance of details does not make those details less important. The Warring States Period had a long-lasting impact on China, and China remains an important player in modern politics. While I agree our existence is short, I don't think it's correct to say that we'll have no impact on even the Solar System. Among other things, we've already been sending out signals, albeit for an even shorter time. While it is merely speculation at this point, I would not be surprised if our signals, or our probes one day have an impact somewhere else. In the worst case scenario, we at least have the capability to turn the 3rd rock from the sun into a life-less husk. While it may well recover of course, there's no saying how that new iteration may be influenced by the past. The trick is, not all random fluctuations don't matter. Some create new trends, or shift old cycles. That limitation of perspective, that importance of individual encounters, is there whether they have a greater impact elsewhere or not. Whether the Universe is impacted or not is not the deciding factor of how important individual actions are in regards to individuals. It does not make it "more" or "less" important within a limited perspective. This is a bit of a personal story, but a couple years ago, I was up late writing. I forget if I was working on an article or one of my novels at the time, and that specific detail isn't terribly important. I do, however, remember thinking that my neighboor seemed to be up later than usual, she'd apparently left the light on and I could see it splash against the fence out the window while I worked. Five or ten minutes later, I heard a cracking sound of a window breaking, and when I looked closer, I could see the light from my neighbor's small apartment flickering, but not in the manner of an an electric light with it going on and off. I got curious and looked out properly, and saw that the entire back of her small apartment was on fire. I immediately shouted out to my neighbor's and woke them while dialing the emergency number. I got in contact and gave as much detail as I could. I got out and tried to see if she was actually inside, and if there was any way to open the front door (I had also checked the frame and stuff as well), but it was locked and the window was closed and locked as well. I heard her calling for help, and said, if she could, she needed to get to and unlock the door. I panicked, of course, and looked for something I could try and break the window open with. I don't know if it would have helped, but in my state, I couldn't find one. I also looked for a hose or a bucket, and in my panick and for lack of a hose, I didn't think of even using a pot for water. Eventually the police and firemen arrived to handle the situation. Apparently, I was the last person to hear my neighbor's voice. And even though I try and tell myself that I couldn't really have done anything to save her (opening the door or window at that time might have even caused the fire to spread into that area faster), at the very least, I wish I'd noticed that the "light" my neighbor had "left on" wasn't. Maybe if I'd noticed it before the fire had gotten so hot as to break a glass door, she would have survived. I don't know, but it's something I have to live with for the rest of my life. My doubts and her screams for help that only I heard... and couldn't do anything. Later, I even remembered I had a hatchet near the kitchen I might have been able to use to break the window, or maybe bust open the door, but like using a cooking pot to carry water, I didn't think of it in my panicked state. None of this is likely to have any great impact on the world, let alone the solar system or the galaxy or the universe. I never really knew my neighbor, I don't even know her full name, where she came from. I know a few things, that she wasn't on great terms with her family, but at least one person came by asking about her that was family. But I never got to know who she was or what she was really like. Even with my ignorance of all these details, my interactions with her have ended up having a strong effect on me as a person. And maybe I won't have any great impact on the world either (indeed, statistically speaking, it's unlikely) but I might have impact on someone who has impact on someone who knows a guy who's the second cousin of the sister of the husband of the mother of a friend who does. It's an interesting thing to think about. Regardless, it will always be no less or more important than it is. On a far less personal note, it can also be pointed out, that the torture of prisoners undoubtedly had a profound effect on Bradly (now "Chelsea", apparently) Manning. The only one punished for American torture that I know of... or more specifically, leaking the fact of that torture to Wikileaks. Because the politicians prefer to go after the people that expose the corruption rather than those involved in the corruption.
I disagree. If the consequence for doing evil is not severe enough to deter people from doing evil, then it is not effective. Where the problem lies is who determines what is evil.
And the solution for that is that human rights are not abolishable. Woop de doo. Well ... Tell the guy who defined them that he really couldn't have, because he did.
I... I dislike this line of thinking. It assumes that the primary method of preventing evil is by increasing punishment, which is not necessarily true. Also, inherent to the idea of human rights is the notion that all humans have them, not just people who everyone agrees are "good."
Batman. No, seriously, more like a commitee. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people" That part is wrong though, mankind doesn't give a damn about the US torturing and murdering thousands. At least not enough to do anything about it.
Basic human rights doesn't mean you can get away with doing "evil." It does mean you have the right to defend yourself in court. It means you have a right to due process (within a reasonable time-frame), and it means you have the right to not be tortured (although not necessarily to continue to live once found guilty). It means you have a right to not be punished above and beyond your crime. At very least, shouldn't we make sure that the "evil doers" are ACTUALLY "evil doers" before issuing severe punishments? Considering the apathy towards (or in some cases, endorsement of) Prison **** (which is far more common than **** outside of prisons), it's not terribly surprising. If culture condones attitudes like Darklard48's towards "regular" criminals, how much easier is it to justify those "truly terrible" alleged terrorists?
What do you consider to be human rights? In some instances what many consider to be human rights interfere with each other. If you consider food, medical care, and procreation human rights, it will cause a snowball effect in some places. Providing food and medical care to tribes that normally have a high death toll from starvation or malaria allows more children to reach adulthood. This in turn causes an increase in the number of children born, increasing the strain on the food and medical supplies that are already being provided from outside influences. Eventually this reaches critical mass and more resources cannot be provided. Ultimately this causes a higher death toll than if the initial food and medical care had never been provided. In my example, providing things that some perceive as human rights has caused more harm than good.
Oh, that would be some hundreds, but what about the thousands of truly innocent murdered in South America under the regiment of the US? They hardly get a tear shed for them either.
mankind as a whole doesn't give a Bane Shift about anything. it's too abstract (also large) to. aside from that, the version i've heard of the UN is that it's largely powered by the US. if so, of course it's going to get politicked in favor of US politicians (even if not, it's still a political entity more reliant on member states for action than anything, ya? things will get ignored all ogre the place)
The key is that the impact of individual random fluctuations diminishes the farther you get away from the source and the more macro of a scale you look at it. It takes a non-trivial amount of converging fluctuations in order to actually have any lasting impact for any length of relevant time - and that can still be washed away with enough time. Think of throwing pebbles into a vast lake or ocean. The ripples happened, but don't have any real lasting impact. While it is more likely that the human race as a whole (or all life ever on the planet as a whole) would have an impact, I think humans generally overestimate their individual importance in the grand scheme of things. Almost nothing that any specific individual will do will have any impact on the solar system (at least not anything that would not have been eventually replicated by another individual/organization/entity). Humans like to emphasize specific events/people in history, because that is how we view the world. But grand shifts are slow grinds due to cumulative effects, not jerking around based on individual choices. For example, with "our signals." It is true that some alien race may detect it someday. But it all likelihood it probably doesn't matter whether we meant to send it, or they detected it by accident, which country/individual/organization sent it. In fact, the realistic expectation here is that by the time anyone hears us, we'll be long gone. Could it theoretically have some interesting impact on the alien planet? Sure, but it wouldn't be because of any individual here, but rather what receiving that signal means to them and how that compounds with whatever movements was already in motion there at that time. Somewhat related, here's an interesting thing: This is a "man-made" lake that happened by accident due to human intervention (due to an accumulation of factors), but at the same time, it didn't really change anything long-term and in fact, the area was a lake throughout much of history, and the "accident" would not have happened here specifically were it not for pre-existing conditions.
