From the beginning of time the world has been able to stay stabilized through a series of checks and balances. If one species got too dominant, mother nature always had a way to bring it down. That is why there are several episodes of mass extinction in Earth's history. This has even held true with all of the different civilizations of man. The difference is that it is not mother nature that brought them to their end, it was other men. On the other hand, maybe it is "nature" that was the downfall of these civilizations. Is it not the "nature" of man to want what another man has? Is it not the "nature" of man to want to have the world under his control? "Nature" blesses all things with certain traits that helps them advance, but is this desire to conquer the world a blessing or a curse?
How different would the world be if we did not have the desire to claim domain over everything? What would change if the Europeans never decided to explore and discover a "new world"? Would there have ever been any wars? Would there have ever been slavery? (I know slavery still existed, but I am talking about the "drag someone from their continent to a completely different continent" type of slavery) What would the Native American be like now if Columbus and his boys did not come over here wrecking all kinds of havoc?
"That's why you are stupid. You are taking away humans desire to learn, and human creativity. We are naturally curious, we want to learn and explore new things. That's what makes us such a great species. That's what has allowed us to advance over all of this time. Fore you to take that away mean you are turning us back into neanderthals."
I see your point Douglass. Our curiosity and creativity is what makes us so special. So let us explore a scenario. We will assume that everything in history happens exactly the same way, but we will remove any instance that someone did something out of pure greed. What events would vanish? We would have never invaded Iraq looking for WMD A.K.A. oil. Katrina would have been avoided because the people in charge would have minded paying the extra money to fix the levees. The environment would be in MUCH better shape because companies would not mind paying a little extra money to dispose of waste in the correct manner.
(I know I am talking about cliche things here, but I am not a history buff. You get the point I am trying to get across.)
"Maybe greed is the way nature intends to put us in check, along with all of the other 7 seven deadly sins. If we were not as messed up as we are we would be thriving. Not just as a country, but as a entire species. It human were able to set aside egos and greed we could all come together and do some truly remarkable things."
The sad thing is that this will never happen. So in essence, human will probably never reach their full potential because we are physically incapable of the whole before the individual.
The question always remains: The world would be different, but would it be better?
I think it would be.
~sTeW~
7 comments:
this is too much philosophy for my brain on hump day.
It took a couple of readings and visits to get my mind to eat this post up. After some thought, I think the world would be more peaceful but more advanced I'm not so sure. Competition creates advancement even it is at the exspense of the "weak".
i for one would be willing to forfeit some luxuries to see that the majority was also doing alright
Greed.man. itll stand idly by while watching folk get killed off
Okay, I listened to the song and I read the post. I gotta say...I liked both. You made some very interesting points, although I don't necessaryly agree with you on all of them.
I'm not sure if everyone wants to rule the world and those that truly want it all are just naive or plain stupid. Think of all the problems that come with just wanting a little. I know for one, I have never been interested in wanting it all. I'm happy with just a portion of the world.
However, I do agree that the nature of most men (women) is greed. The need to want things in excess. That is why the more money you earn the more money you spend. Can you image how much better off people would be if they spent well within their means?
Still, would you really want to live in a world of passive agressive people?
-One Man's Opinion. Peace
@niki - lazy
@faint of heart - you are absolutely right. you need that competition for there to be advancement and little people will collateral damage, but those little folks dont have to stay down. sometimes when folks reach the top the get there and make sure no one else can come up.
@dejanae - yes it will. its more deadly that what people give it credit for
@one man - you are right, all people do not want to rule the world, and those that do are stupid. but you know they are out there. but it does not even have to be just one person, it could be a group of people. that's when it gets dangerous. think KKK or Hitler and his boys. they want the whole world to be one way. (am i still on topic??? who knows.)
as for your question, it would suck to live in a world filled with passive aggressive people, hell i am living in a part of the country now where there are a bunch of folks like that and it sucks. i would rather you just be fully aggressive so that its out in the open and we can avoid each other....or solve it.
whichever works better
I think you're right. Actually, I'm positive you're right. It really is terrible that we'll never get even close to happening.
not totally unrelated but i remember rorscach from watchmen saying something similar in regards to the human race...and why he didnt want to be a part of this world any longer.
even when it comes to religion. everyone and their "god". we have so much faith and are so flawed all in one breath.
ppl just need something/someone to believe in, i guess.
-kb
Post a Comment