Total wiretapping is being introduced - page 42
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Really?
I see a lot of states being divided by outside forces, someone demanding independence...
And you're talking about globalization... Stop fantasizing about utopia...
Remember Obroservis. She wasn't even shut down, she was at home making music videos and drawing pictures :)
Google whose sister she is and the question goes away.
That's what Alexander was going for. ... ...
as well as Caesar, Genghis Khan and many others...... they were all limited by their own omnipotence: king dies = empire dies (sometimes even earlier)
But that's when it will be yet. Either after the problem of overpopulation is solved in other ways. Or after one country's government takes over all the others. This is not really difficult.
The matter is not just to take over, it will not be much use, it will be harder to legislate when the wars will not occur between countries but within a country between the population.
of course evolution does not happen in one day........ the point is to make war an ineffective and unnecessary activity
That would mean enforcing order with an iron fist and that is a dead end. It is much more effective to maintain states for the time being, and bribe governments to create controlled wars, so as not to get spontaneous and uncontrolled wars. In addition, to bring people (to force them to evolve) is easier at this stage in their racial and religious environment (the essence of religion is the same, they were created for something), so any attempt to stop the state-racial-religious order of the world order - in any history ended with the death of the instigator (in a strange way).
violent and artificial formations are unstable and fall apart, history shows that
So, to give up religions for people will be much easier (when the managerial role of morality will disappear from it, as well as the role of the govt). It is much more difficult to change the institution of the family, while it will be changed, and they are already changing it.
the family (and religion too) are very new constructs in people's lives
since Paleolithic people lived in tribes (30-100 persons) and instead of religion there was magic (animism, totemism, ...) and it lasted for over 95 percent of human history
So there is nothing fundamentally complicated about changing these constructs, it's more a question of upbringing
There are many points of view, some are quite wild, that may be such a monogamous-o already exists, formally there are borders of states for the population, but in reality at the top there has been a mono-governance for a long time. And to manage the population by localizing them within different borders and religions is still the most profitable.
There is no need to enclose someone in borders (unless they want it themselves).
The question is always this: rights and property, the effective regulation of these institutions.
The question is how exactly we will be brought to it, through chipping like sheep or there are longer but humane ways. And since we will not choose the outcome, I would like to participate in choosing the path to that outcome.
I would hazard a guess that at some point the issue of chipping will be removed as a matter of principle.
The problem of overpopulation in a mono-population will be no less acute and the state of different ones will not justify the wars that can control this very population. Either the society will reach the level of development when it will find a humane way out of the situation, or it will be forcefully led to the situation when it will be decided not by the society but by those who are in charge and the level of control will allow them to do it.
So it is not known yet, whose "democracy" will be "more democratic" in the existing world or in a monocoque world.
One can move into the future in different ways, but there will always be those who can get something out of it.
That's it, you're going to be a sectarian.
Not just sectarians, but a group of dangerous freethinkers - you have encroached on the sacred - on the statehood itself! ))))
In fact, everything will happen gradually, borders will be erased, first, states will become territories, regions, areas for business, life and industry.
Then they will disappear altogether, just historical areas.
In my opinion democracy is no better than a monarchy.
Some time ago I started to get into the meanings of commonly used words. For example, "democracy".
It usually refers to the ancient Greeks as "the power of the people".
And who is "the people"? The answer to this question is very interesting. The answer may vary from city to city, from time to time, but the essence is approximately the following.
1. The cities of ancient Greece were slave states. Judging by the standard of living of the Greeks (statues, science, arts, sports ... all these people ate but did not produce food) there must have been many times more slaves than free Greeks. The "people" did not include slaves.
2. Women came to be considered as people only recently. Also not a people.
3. The age limit.
What percentage of the total number of people were "the people"?
But we are more interested in the question: who could be elected?
1. Age qualification: male over 30 (average age 35)
2. The census of sedentariness: he had to be born in the State in question
3. Value qualification (to have something to protect): a wife and children
4. A characteristic of the ability to defend: being obliged to go to war.
5. The property qualification: participation in wars as part of units with the latest weapons (always very expensive).
Again the question is: what percentage of the "people" could be elected?
Has anything changed in the true meaning of the word 'democracy'? The form has changed, but the essence is the same.
Everything else is for the peeple to eat...
PS.
Even more interesting is the meaning of the phrase "civil society".
I tell you exactly as a prophet - states will disappear and it is a short-term prospect on a historical scale - take a screenshot of my post - you can show it to your grandchildren.
I'm telling you like a prophet - states will disappear and this is a short-term prospect on a historical scale - take a screenshot of my post - you can show it to your grandchildren
not just sectarians but a group of dangerous freethinkers - an attack on the sacred - on statehood itself! ))))
In fact, everything will happen gradually, borders will be erased, first, states will become territories, provinces, areas for business, life and industry.
then they'll disappear altogether, just historical areas.
I'm telling you like a prophet - states will disappear and it's not a distant prospect on a historical scale - take a screenshot of my post - you can show it to your grandchildren
Oh, I don't believe in your vannings... screen my post, you'll be showing your grandchildren a failed prophecy. You could have predicted the end of the world.