Final Fantasy Hacktics

religion isn't (inherently, intrinsicly) bad,

religious people aren't bad,

religion and religious people are, for the most part, a force for good in the world.
the problem is, religion is a source of authority, influence, and control.
and like all such positions of power, it attracts a disproportionate numbers of perverts and bullies.

so the problem with religion isn't actually about religion; it's about the unchallengable, unimpeachable authority it provides, which bullies and perverts are so good at hiding behind.

all the world's problems can be traced back to unopposed authority.

so the problem is, how does one effectively undermine, subvert, and destroy injust authority?

To destroy unjust authority, one must remove the support for the unjust.  The short answer is: get people to support the good of society and make the people aware of what is going on. etc.

And religion is a source of morals and standards on one hand, but also a source of corruption on the other.  Are you trying to start a religious debate??

You're pretty much right.

And the answer is, in my opinion, education. Give everyone knowledge of the past and they'll be less likely to repeat it's mistakes.

To destroy unjust authority, one must remove the support for the unjust. The short answer is: get people to support the good of society and make the people aware of what is going on. etc.

And religion is a source of morals and standards on one hand, but also a source of corruption on the other. Are you trying to start a religious debate??

i don't think it's religion so much as the power of religion that's corrupting.  and it's not just religion, but ALL authority that attracts the corrupt.  and i'm inclined to think that education can help, but it's not enough.  look at the nazis or the aztecs;  they were intelligent, educated societies that went horribly wrong.  i need to find the connection, find out how one goes from being a normal human being into a homocidal maniac (or even worse, how one can be a normal human being AND homicidal maniac), and distill it into something that can be expressed into  a few sentences.  

(knowledge+experience)introspection = intelligence/wisdom

my first post in this topic is the product of years of thought.  i took all the things i saw that were wrong with the world, and i (think) i discovered what causes them.  a desire for authority, influence, control, or wealth.  the desire to place yourself and your beliefs above everyone else; to spread your dominion and your ideas as far as possible.  call it the aggressive meme.

And the answer is, in my opinion, education. Give everyone knowledge of the past and they'll be less likely to repeat it's mistakes.

education doesn't change human nature.  so, what can change human nature?  what forces govern the desire for agressive expansion?

i think empathy is the most powerful limiting force of, well, evil.  that is what we're talking about, right?  genocide, oppression, theft... all words for evil.

Quoteall the world's problems can be traced back to unopposed authority.

what.

genocide in rwanda - if the UN peacekeeping mission was adequately funded and had functioning equipment and maybe a battalion of marines, with a talk company, it never would've happened.  or, going further back, if the british hadn't imposed arbitrary classification of africans according to what they do (farmers were hutu and city dwellers were tutsi, i think), then the oppression and division of one made-up group of people by another made-up group of people never would've happened.

germany, post WW1 - if someone had called out the brownshirts on, well, any of the crazy crap they were doing, the european theatre of WW2 never would've happened

pre columbus america - if any of the people kidnapped and mass-sacrificed by the aztecs had a means of fighting back, like knowedge and experience fighting an insurgent-guerilla campaign, they would've survived.

japan pre-ww2 - if anybody in japan had a means of resisting the Imperial Army (who assasinated anyone who opposed them), then the build up to war, and the atrocities the imperial army committed EVERYWHERE they went would never have happened.

america pre-ww2 - if someone would've called out the american politicians who were playing war games near japan, the japanese never would've believed the crap the imperial army was shoveling.  notably, retired general smedly butler, who was awarded the medal of honor twice, did campaign against it.

guatemala, 1980's to today - if someone had asked ronald reagan why he was funding militias who consider rape an effective anti-insurgent tactic, then guatemala wouldn't have thousands of unsolved murders of women today.

power, because it attracts so many horrible people, must be monitered, regulated, and sometimes opposed.

neverminding all the disease/mental illness/environmental issues, sure.

And how shall power be regulated without power?

As far as I know, power regulates power.  It's tweedledee to tweedledum.

Quoteall the world's problems can be traced back to unopposed authority.

I think people themselves are more likely to be the problem, you don't need authority for that.

What the fuck is the purpose of this topic?

Many of the ideas here do not even make any sense. A homicidal maniac, is just that a maniac; they are not a normal person.

The desire to dominate and expand isn't just human nature, it is the focus of every living thing. What you are asking is unattainable, without the drive for expansion and dominion there is nothing.

Quote from: "CidIII"The desire to dominate and expand isn't just human nature, it is the focus of every living thing. What you are asking is unattainable, without the drive for expansion and dominion there is nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kndX3tVxCt8


I dunno what the purpose of the topic is, either. I suspect red bird was just publicly musing.

That isn't true actually, any living thing will dominate an area if given the chance, human are just more equip for the task because they don't have any predators, and possess the ability to migrate and adapt to any environment.

And, whether or not a virus is an organism is debatable.

Virusses don't reproduce, other organism reproduce them. Officially they are not regarded as living.

I'm no biologist, but afaik, most creatures will try to form an equilibrium. Some kill/eat their offspring if there's too many in their area.
I suppose you could argue that nature isn't shortsighted, and that "given the chance" doesn't mean that they'll fully consume otherwise replenishable resources (at least in their natural habitat. Invasive species are an exception). I'll agree with that.

Humanity, though, has a history of doing just that. I believe we have the intellect to potentially transcend the "invasive species" model. Whether or not that potential will be realized is another matter. But honestly, I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't try.

They kill and eat their own offspring because they are depleting their resources, they're not consciously doing it for the mere purpose of establishing an equilibrium, they're doing it to survive. Most animals cannot adapt as quickly as humans, and cannot migrate to new areas. They do not have means of establishing a reliant food source. They do not "try" to establish an equilibrium, they are forced to.

Yeah, that's the idea I intended to say I would be in agreement with. Bad word choice on my part if you thought I meant something else.

That's the problem though, you cannot say that humans don't try to establish an equilibrium with their environment because neither do other animals.

Humans have rarely been put into a position where they were forced to establish an equilibrium with their environment. As long as there is sufficient food, space, and the lack of predators; humans will continue to expand. This is true with all animals. There are cases where groups of humans have established an equilibrium with their environment, look at island settlements.

Hrm, yeah the problem is word choice. By "try" I didn't mean consciously attempt to create a balance for the sake of balance. More like just doing what's necessary to survive.

It'd be better in the long run if we struck a balance with our enviornment somehow, but we don't because it's not currently necessary for survival. I argue that we have the potential to do it anyway, because we're smart enough to throw off instinct. Whether or not we will is uncertain (and quite likely we won't, as we're not that smart), but I think that the best way to attempt to is through education. That's my position in this thread.

Wow, i found a lot of insight in this topic. Personally, really like religion. An organized religion on the other hand is different. A belief is nice, a body regulating shared belief is more trouble than its wroth. For every good thing organized religion has done, it has casued something as bad as the first act was good or worse. Religious justification of racism with missions to africa. The Crusades with educating people in its infancy (i speak of Christianity of course) Uniting a people with Islamic extremeists. At best religion has done litle better in genral. At worst its done the world a bit worse.
Political influence is another beast. Any christian trying to influence politics to suit religious laws should site some Bible quotage:
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Matthew 22:21  

Leave goverment law alone damn it. I'm looking at you Iran and other theocracies. Im looking at you swiss calvanism and Massachusetts Puritans. Even the Pope's rallies to fight abortion is crossing that oh so blury line between church and state. I believe in a God (Deism) and he wants no part in the written law. So keeps your holy books out of my holy book. I don't tell you how to worship your god. Don't tell me what is fair in just in the earthly law.

Sorry bout the massive post, but i am quite passionately against organized religion. Viva El Senor! Se more la Iglesia! Hope i said that right...(accent marks aside)

I agree with what you're saying, redux, but I think you're throwing the blame slightly off target.

I'd argue that the "holier than thou," and "my G.od's law applies to everyone" type of opinions are to blame. An individual can have these. An organization with these ideas is indeed a monster. But you can have an organized religion without them.

In a way we already attempt to balance with the environment, employing farming techniques that conserve soil, etc. But, getting the entire human population to create a complete balance would be nearly impossible, that would require a worldwide birth rate regulation, among other things.

Yes, education will help, but it's the technology that comes with it that will help more.