What would you "Unify" in humanity?

[Enforcer Talen]

Religion aside, the last 2 World Wars weren't started by religion. So religion isn't the only contributing factor. If there's a will, there's a way. Justifying it is just a silly tidbit to rouse the masses to support your little/huge war.

Although, you could argue the totatlitarian philisophy of Hitler and Stalin were inherantly fundamentalist, and lent itself well to warlike views of the world.

[Darth Raptor]

The argument that we shouldn't remove religion because removing it won't fix everything is fundamentally absurd. It will still fix a lot of stuff.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The argument that we shouldn't remove religion because removing it won't fix everything is fundamentally absurd. It will still fix a lot of stuff.

Excuses for starting wars can be as silly as "I don't like your face". Sure, go ahead and remove religion, but it sure won't remove the innate need for people to seek some strength in groups. When groups are threatened, they retaliate.

[SWPIGWANG]

If you think any single factor and unify humanity to end conflict, you are grossly underestimating the human desire for differentiation and the ability to do so.

People can loath each other triggered on the perference in Sci-Fi. Given time, the divergence will never remain so small. Humanity started as similar small nomadic groups after all, and the evolution towards distinct identity was no historical accident.

Bullshit. Our diversity has nothing to do with us being the dominant species.

No, our diversity have EVERYTHING to do with our success. Not physical diversity as we are one race, but culture diversity. Thanks to culture diversity, a human being can survive from the frozen tundras to endless deserts to the modern high rise. A man that grew up in a topical rainforest with stone age technology would have drastically different culture than one that grew up in a nice modern costal town, and each would have an very different set of values, knowledge and skills taught though the transfer mechanism of culture, which suffer its own natural selection.

Diversity is not about identifying others and elimating them, as most ideas are not evangelical. The diversity in ideas is simply so diverse that it can be harshly exclusive (racism) to wholely inclusive (humanism). It ranges from hopeless idealistic pacifism to self rightous militanism of divine right to rule. Those ideas suffers its own natural selection not entirely linked to the survival of its host. (a suicide bomber ideas may die to convert another host, while a militarist may be disarmed with ideals of peace)

It is precisely this diversity and flexibility that allows humans to adopt to almost any sistuation. This diversity is a result of the gift of intelligence in which a human can conceivablely think of anything. The risk that sometimes people think it is a good idea to kill each other is just part of the risk that comes with this design. After all, given the right conditions, people will kill themselves willingly.

[Covenant]

There's a difference between a war and a fight, you know. Leaders of superpowers don't marshall their nations to war over things like "Hay i dun liek ur face," like people are saying here. Fights break out over Sci-Fi. Wars do not. Removing religion gets rid of the justification for a lot of idiocy and a mechanism for perpetuating it, but not necessarily the underlying factors at the root of it.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Economy. Religion makes a good excuse, but the majority of conflicts are at heart motivated by something along the line of "They have it, we want it."

Or nationality, but that's too ill-defined in this poll.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There's a difference between a war and a fight, you know. Leaders of superpowers don't marshall their nations to war over things like "Hay i dun liek ur face," like people are saying here. Fights break out over Sci-Fi. Wars do not. Removing religion gets rid of the justification for a lot of idiocy and a mechanism for perpetuating it, but not necessarily the underlying factors at the root of it.

Religion is but one of many manifestations of the innate weaknesses of humanity. Removing it merely leads to it being substituted by another. Wars can be started on the slightest of insults, especially when rulers in question are merely trying to find an excuse for starting a war. "I don't like your face" is admittedly a simplistic way of describing perhaps racism and other forms of hate. Religion, is merely one of the tools used by rulers to clothed themselves in an air of dignity and nobility and self-righteousness in their quest to gain support to perpetrate a war.

Even in Communist China, despite the decades of exhortations of atheism, hasn't stopped people from joining religions and what not. It boils down to one of the peculiarities of human nature: Strength in groups for safety, that someone else is looking out and aiding them in their hour of need etc. Perhaps, one could label this as "fool's hope".

[Spyder]

Other: Intelligence gap

Unify the world's collective ability to think critically, logically and creatively at a high standard.

That'll fix a number of problems in one hit.

[General Zod]

There's a difference between a war and a fight, you know. Leaders of superpowers don't marshall their nations to war over things like "Hay i dun liek ur face," like people are saying here. Fights break out over Sci-Fi. Wars do not. Removing religion gets rid of the justification for a lot of idiocy and a mechanism for perpetuating it, but not necessarily the underlying factors at the root of it.

Religion is but one of many manifestations of the innate weaknesses of humanity. Removing it merely leads to it being substituted by another. Wars can be started on the slightest of insults, especially when rulers in question are merely trying to find an excuse for starting a war. "I don't like your face" is admittedly a simplistic way of describing perhaps racism and other forms of hate. Religion, is merely one of the tools used by rulers to clothed themselves in an air of dignity and nobility and self-righteousness in their quest to gain support to perpetrate a war.

Even in Communist China, despite the decades of exhortations of atheism, hasn't stopped people from joining religions and what not. It boils down to one of the peculiarities of human nature: Strength in groups for safety, that someone else is looking out and aiding them in their hour of need etc. Perhaps, one could label this as "fool's hope".

It's not about their reasons to fight. Mysogynists and other subhuman forms of trash will find excuses to hate no matter what. But if you remove religion, you remove one of their justifications for hating and convincing others to believe the same way they do. How many people in Nazi Germany would have had justifications for hating the Jews without religion to fuel their claims? Or how would the Pope been able to have find an excuse to rally the people to start the crusades without religion? Etc. etc.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There's a difference between a war and a fight, you know. Leaders of superpowers don't marshall their nations to war over things like "Hay i dun liek ur face," like people are saying here. Fights break out over Sci-Fi. Wars do not. Removing religion gets rid of the justification for a lot of idiocy and a mechanism for perpetuating it, but not necessarily the underlying factors at the root of it.

Religion is but one of many manifestations of the innate weaknesses of humanity. Removing it merely leads to it being substituted by another. Wars can be started on the slightest of insults, especially when rulers in question are merely trying to find an excuse for starting a war. "I don't like your face" is admittedly a simplistic way of describing perhaps racism and other forms of hate. Religion, is merely one of the tools used by rulers to clothed themselves in an air of dignity and nobility and self-righteousness in their quest to gain support to perpetrate a war.

Even in Communist China, despite the decades of exhortations of atheism, hasn't stopped people from joining religions and what not. It boils down to one of the peculiarities of human nature: Strength in groups for safety, that someone else is looking out and aiding them in their hour of need etc. Perhaps, one could label this as "fool's hope".

It's not about their reasons to fight. Mysogynists and other subhuman forms of trash will find excuses to hate no matter what. But if you remove religion, you remove one of their justifications for hating and convincing others to believe the same way they do. How many people in Nazi Germany would have had justifications for hating the Jews without religion to fuel their claims? Or how would the Pope been able to have find an excuse to rally the people to start the crusades without religion? Etc. etc.

At that point of time, half of Europe was bent on killing each other over the issue of kingships, right to rule etc. Indeed, religion was perhaps one of the justifications for the Crusade, but by no means was it the only one. At that point of time, already the Muslims were beginning strategic encirclement of Europe, with them encroaching on the Mediterranean. It was but a matter of time, Europe would clash with the Muslims again, as they did when Charles the Hammer fought with the Moors who were invading the Franks.

Religion in this case, was the motivation, and justification, but ultimately, it was a geopolitical struggle for the Mediterranean following the vacuum left behind by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

[General Zod]

At that point of time, half of Europe was bent on killing each other over the issue of kingships, right to rule etc. Indeed, religion was perhaps one of the justifications for the Crusade, but by no means was it the only one. At that point of time, already the Muslims were beginning strategic encirclement of Europe, with them encroaching on the Mediterranean. It was but a matter of time, Europe would clash with the Muslims again, as they did when Charles the Hammer fought with the Moors who were invading the Franks.

Religion in this case, was the motivation, and justification, but ultimately, it was a geopolitical struggle for the Mediterranean following the vacuum left behind by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

If you can show me something that's capable of justifying conflicts, torture, mass murder, genocide, spousal abuse, misogeny and general idiotic laws being passed as religion to the same degree, you might actually have a point.

[Covenant]

At that point of time, half of Europe was bent on killing each other over the issue of kingships, right to rule etc. Indeed, religion was perhaps one of the justifications for the Crusade, but by no means was it the only one. At that point of time, already the Muslims were beginning strategic encirclement of Europe, with them encroaching on the Mediterranean. It was but a matter of time, Europe would clash with the Muslims again, as they did when Charles the Hammer fought with the Moors who were invading the Franks.

Religion in this case, was the motivation, and justification, but ultimately, it was a geopolitical struggle for the Mediterranean following the vacuum left behind by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

If you can show me something that's capable of justifying conflicts, torture, mass murder, genocide, spousal abuse, misogeny and general idiotic laws being passed as religion to the same degree, you might actually have a point.

I'd say money was the justification for that. Nazi Germany came to be due to the immense economic sanctions placed on Germany after WWI. The Jew-hating came to a head with the "Stab In The Back" theory of how they lost so incredibly fast (WWI was, afterall, an Imperial war fought essentially for economic reasons again) and fuelled by the horrible povery that gripped Germany in that wake. Hitler promised them national pride, but also food on the table. I'd say that if WWI had never been waged for greedy reasons that WWII never would have happened, and if Germany hadn't been punished the way they were for the devastation afterwards that WWII and Nazism wouldn't have risen to power in the wake of that either.

[wautd]

Considering tribalism is still strong in the human race: a common enemy (alien invasion)

Or a bit more realisticly: common language

[K. A. Pital]

Annihilate religion, closely followed by equalizing economy. Do not annihilate ethnicities (can't think of a bigger blow to genefund diversity).

[General Zod]

I'd say money was the justification for that. Nazi Germany came to be due to the immense economic sanctions placed on Germany after WWI. The Jew-hating came to a head with the "Stab In The Back" theory of how they lost so incredibly fast (WWI was, afterall, an Imperial war fought essentially for economic reasons again) and fuelled by the horrible povery that gripped Germany in that wake. Hitler promised them national pride, but also food on the table. I'd say that if WWI had never been waged for greedy reasons that WWII never would have happened, and if Germany hadn't been punished the way they were for the devastation afterwards that WWII and Nazism wouldn't have risen to power in the wake of that either.

I'm not exactly sure you can make a link between money and genocide, however. The Jews were already considerably mistrusted and hated because of their reputation as bankers and moneylenders, even if that wasn't the status quo by WWII, and the rallying cry "The Jews killed Jesus, and are responsible for every major catastrophe since!1!!!1!!!" is as an awful convenient excuse to rally against them and engender hatred to degrees that simple economic sanctions can't quite match.

[Guardsman Bass]

Name a conflict which isn't fueled by:

They have it, we want it.
Or:
They're different from us, and therefore bad.

If there isn't a difference, humanity will make one up. It's impossible to eliminate conflicts.

It's doubtful that you could completely eliminate human difference-driven conflict, but since we're assuming across-the-board human change, you could probably change things so that people's first reaction is to co-operate, not shun or kill.

[Covenant]

I'd say money was the justification for that. Nazi Germany came to be due to the immense economic sanctions placed on Germany after WWI. The Jew-hating came to a head with the "Stab In The Back" theory of how they lost so incredibly fast (WWI was, afterall, an Imperial war fought essentially for economic reasons again) and fuelled by the horrible povery that gripped Germany in that wake. Hitler promised them national pride, but also food on the table. I'd say that if WWI had never been waged for greedy reasons that WWII never would have happened, and if Germany hadn't been punished the way they were for the devastation afterwards that WWII and Nazism wouldn't have risen to power in the wake of that either.

I'm not exactly sure you can make a link between money and genocide, however. The Jews were already considerably mistrusted and hated because of their reputation as bankers and moneylenders, even if that wasn't the status quo by WWII, and the rallying cry "The Jews killed Jesus, and are responsible for every major catastrophe since!1!!!1!!!" is as an awful convenient excuse to rally against them and engender hatred to degrees that simple economic sanctions can't quite match.

You're right, but what I'm saying is that Nazi Germany never would have existed, without Nazis running the show or Hitlers in powers and such and that means no deathcamps, if it hadn't been for the total economic collapse of post WWI Germany. Lots of people hate each other, but it takes something else to set it off.

[Velthuijsen]

Quick question to the people who opted for removing religion.
Did you opt for this because of the fanatics and the people who can't understand that their religion isn't yours?

[General Zod]

Quick question to the people who opted for removing religion.
Did you opt for this because of the fanatics and the people who can't understand that their religion isn't yours?

Try actually reading the thread. Those that voted against religion have provided several reasons.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'd say money was the justification for that. Nazi Germany came to be due to the immense economic sanctions placed on Germany after WWI. The Jew-hating came to a head with the "Stab In The Back" theory of how they lost so incredibly fast (WWI was, afterall, an Imperial war fought essentially for economic reasons again) and fuelled by the horrible povery that gripped Germany in that wake. Hitler promised them national pride, but also food on the table. I'd say that if WWI had never been waged for greedy reasons that WWII never would have happened, and if Germany hadn't been punished the way they were for the devastation afterwards that WWII and Nazism wouldn't have risen to power in the wake of that either.

I'm not exactly sure you can make a link between money and genocide, however. The Jews were already considerably mistrusted and hated because of their reputation as bankers and moneylenders, even if that wasn't the status quo by WWII, and the rallying cry "The Jews killed Jesus, and are responsible for every major catastrophe since!1!!!1!!!" is as an awful convenient excuse to rally against them and engender hatred to degrees that simple economic sanctions can't quite match.

The problem with Nazi Germany, was that the notion of Aryan supremacy became not just an idealogy but a religion of a sorts. Religion, denoted explicitly or not, can come in many forms. The Romans and Greeks were superior to all, and thus it was their right to kill and enslave the "barbarians". It should be noted that archaelogists have found instances in history where whole villages were put to death by their rivals, not because of religion but because of inter-village warfare. Nazism, was a form of "religion", which served as a unifying force to rouse the people to support war against their inferiors, which essentially "dehumanised" them and made it perfectly justifiable to kill the enemy.

Even getting rid of all religion, you will just "remove one evil" and create another. Further more, it will not be easy, and unless you wish to put to death billions of people, it won't work. What needs to be done is to attack the root of the problem which is the fact that there are people do not tolerate diversity and hate it and attempt to impose their will upon others. People need to accept that others do not share their beliefs and attempt to accommodate and stop being presumptuous.

[Haruko]

The problem with Nazi Germany, was that the notion of Aryan supremacy became not just an idealogy but a religion of a sorts. Religion, denoted explicitly or not, can come in many forms. The Romans and Greeks were superior to all, and thus it was their right to kill and enslave the "barbarians". It should be noted that archaelogists have found instances in history where whole villages were put to death by their rivals, not because of religion but because of inter-village warfare. Nazism, was a form of "religion", which served as a unifying force to rouse the people to support war against their inferiors, which essentially "dehumanised" them and made it perfectly justifiable to kill the enemy.

If memory serves, Mr. Wong pointed out in an article at his Science versus Creationism site that Hitler believed the Aryans were created by God, and everyone else were just a bunch of inferiors created by evolution.

[Velthuijsen]

Try actually reading the thread. Those that voted against religion have provided several reasons.

I did read those, I'm not asking for what was stated I am asking for something that looks similar but isn't.

[Solauren]

Intelligence, as in we are all as smart as the person with the highest IQ currently alive, and that becomes the new minimum.

That's around 167 I believe (with reports of up to 230, for the same person).

That should severely weaken alot of currently existing problems, as people grow the brain power to realise the consequences of there actions

[Enforcer Talen]

Intelligence, as in we are all as smart as the person with the highest IQ currently alive, and that becomes the new minimum.

That's around 167 I believe (with reports of up to 230, for the same person).

That should severely weaken alot of currently existing problems, as people grow the brain power to realise the consequences of there actions

How many smart people do you know who make *really* stupid decisions from time to time?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Intelligence, as in we are all as smart as the person with the highest IQ currently alive, and that becomes the new minimum.

That's around 167 I believe (with reports of up to 230, for the same person).

That should severely weaken alot of currently existing problems, as people grow the brain power to realise the consequences of there actions

How many smart people do you know who make *really* stupid decisions from time to time?

Intelligence does not preclude evil. Hitler had a fair bit of support from the German intelligentsia.