Thanks for your engaging post. I’d like to reply to this section of it:
“Currently, my main objective in life is to help create a much brighter future for humanity (that is, I am most motivated by the prospect of creating a radically better world as opposed to securing our current one from catastrophe)”
A much brighter future is likely to involve ideas that are currently largely outside of the group consensus. You know, if a game changing idea was embraced by the group consensus, it likely would have already been implemented.
A radically better world requires radical changes. A radically better world will likely involve a threat to the currently established order. Proposals of necessary scale will not be welcomed by the established cultural authorities. Thus, to seek radical change will probably make you an outsider at the least, and perhaps scorned, or even hated. If that sounds like a price you’re willing to bear, here’s a radical change idea you are welcome to call your own.
The overwhelming vast majority of violence in the world at every level of society is committed by a very easily identified source.
Men. Male humans.
In a world without men a centuries old tidal wave of unspeakable suffering would be lifted from the backs of many millions of innocents.
In addition, the vast resources now required to manage and respond to male violence could be reinvested in constructive life affirming projects like education and health care etc.
The combination of these two factors would usher in a radically new era which might be reasonably labeled something very close to world peace, long dreamed of, but assumed to be impossible.
Should you adopt this cause you will be labeled a nut job, a fruitcake, a wacko, a Nazi, and various other unflattering terms. And should you have the skill to reveal the weaknesses in these challenges, you may very well be hated for doing so.
What typically happens to revolutionaries is that they are hanged, and then MAYBE appreciated long after they are dead.
Welcome to radical change. May you have the courage to embrace your coming unpopularity. :-)
Thesecomments are not acceptable for the Forum, as they come too close to advocating for violence, which is not allowed (you can see the guide to norms on the Forum). The moderation team has issued a warning to the poster.
Please actually read the post you are objecting to. There is NO reference to violence against men in the post. I didn’t advocate violence against men, I didn’t come close to advocating violence against men, I didn’t imply violence against anybody. None of that. Violence is not even needed for a world without men.
I am extremely receptive to challenge. Truly, I am. But please challenge what I actually said, and not stuff you make up and then assign to my name.
What is your suggested alternative to a world without men? The current world which is permeated with violence at every level of society, generating millions of innocent victims over thousands of years?
I replied to your warning letter with a long very polite and agreeable explanation, but it bounced back. No idea if you got it, so I guess this will have to do.
PS: Ok, I get it now, replied to your private message.
Ah, see? The “world without men” idea was quickly down voted. No offense taken, this is completely normal. The concept is too far outside the current group consensus to ever be popular.
And yet, neither the down voters, nor anyone else I’ve discussed this with over a period of years, has been able to explain why they consider the marriage between violent men and an ever accelerating knowledge explosion to be sustainable.
People always hate the “world without men” idea, which is understandable, but they can’t explain what it is about the male gender that is so important that we should accept the horrific price tag male violence inflicts upon SO MANY innocent victims, over thousands of years.
What is it about the male gender that is so important that we should say goodbye to the many trillions of dollars which could be saved and reinvested if male violence didn’t exist?
To understand this concept it helps to flip it around and look at it from the opposite angle.
If you will, imagine that we had already transitioned to a world without men, 90%+ of human violence was ended, millions of innocents were liberated from unjust horrors, and we had trillions of dollars of new money available for further transforming the world for the better.
To complete the thought experiment, now imagine that somebody in that world at peace suggested that the men should be brought back, that they should return to today’s status quo.
Wouldn’t such a person be immediately declared insane?
Thanks for your engaging post. I’d like to reply to this section of it:
A much brighter future is likely to involve ideas that are currently largely outside of the group consensus. You know, if a game changing idea was embraced by the group consensus, it likely would have already been implemented.
A radically better world requires radical changes. A radically better world will likely involve a threat to the currently established order. Proposals of necessary scale will not be welcomed by the established cultural authorities. Thus, to seek radical change will probably make you an outsider at the least, and perhaps scorned, or even hated. If that sounds like a price you’re willing to bear, here’s a radical change idea you are welcome to call your own.
The overwhelming vast majority of violence in the world at every level of society is committed by a very easily identified source.
Men. Male humans.
In a world without men a centuries old tidal wave of unspeakable suffering would be lifted from the backs of many millions of innocents.
In addition, the vast resources now required to manage and respond to male violence could be reinvested in constructive life affirming projects like education and health care etc.
The combination of these two factors would usher in a radically new era which might be reasonably labeled something very close to world peace, long dreamed of, but assumed to be impossible.
Should you adopt this cause you will be labeled a nut job, a fruitcake, a wacko, a Nazi, and various other unflattering terms. And should you have the skill to reveal the weaknesses in these challenges, you may very well be hated for doing so.
What typically happens to revolutionaries is that they are hanged, and then MAYBE appreciated long after they are dead.
Welcome to radical change. May you have the courage to embrace your coming unpopularity. :-)
These comments are not acceptable for the Forum, as they come too close to advocating for violence, which is not allowed (you can see the guide to norms on the Forum). The moderation team has issued a warning to the poster.
Dear Mods,
Please actually read the post you are objecting to. There is NO reference to violence against men in the post. I didn’t advocate violence against men, I didn’t come close to advocating violence against men, I didn’t imply violence against anybody. None of that. Violence is not even needed for a world without men.
I am extremely receptive to challenge. Truly, I am. But please challenge what I actually said, and not stuff you make up and then assign to my name.
What is your suggested alternative to a world without men? The current world which is permeated with violence at every level of society, generating millions of innocent victims over thousands of years?
I replied to your warning letter with a long very polite and agreeable explanation, but it bounced back. No idea if you got it, so I guess this will have to do.
PS: Ok, I get it now, replied to your private message.
Ah, see? The “world without men” idea was quickly down voted. No offense taken, this is completely normal. The concept is too far outside the current group consensus to ever be popular.
And yet, neither the down voters, nor anyone else I’ve discussed this with over a period of years, has been able to explain why they consider the marriage between violent men and an ever accelerating knowledge explosion to be sustainable.
People always hate the “world without men” idea, which is understandable, but they can’t explain what it is about the male gender that is so important that we should accept the horrific price tag male violence inflicts upon SO MANY innocent victims, over thousands of years.
What is it about the male gender that is so important that we should say goodbye to the many trillions of dollars which could be saved and reinvested if male violence didn’t exist?
To understand this concept it helps to flip it around and look at it from the opposite angle.
If you will, imagine that we had already transitioned to a world without men, 90%+ of human violence was ended, millions of innocents were liberated from unjust horrors, and we had trillions of dollars of new money available for further transforming the world for the better.
To complete the thought experiment, now imagine that somebody in that world at peace suggested that the men should be brought back, that they should return to today’s status quo.
Wouldn’t such a person be immediately declared insane?
If you want to hear a truly crackpot scheme....
Just watch the news.