The billionaire CEOs in the U.S., the starving masses in the U.S. The majority of the U.S. population lives in poverty.

Capitalism.

Well, while most everybody didn't answer the second part of my query, I am glad this thread has received some descent attention. While the results thusfar have been what I was expecting, I was hoping to find at least one person who felt the human condition was improving. Anywhos...

As you may have guessed, I believe that humanity, as a whole, is ever-so-slowly getting better. Do not misunderstand me; I do believe there are great wrongs in the world, and that we should not ignore them. This is the way I see it:

The far past:
good: ---
bad: ---

The recent past:
good: --------------------
bad: ------------------

The present:
good: ----------------------------------------
bad: ---------------------------------------

However, since we as a whole seem to perceive the bad more than the good, we see something more like this:

The far past:
good: ---
bad: ---

The recent past:
good: -----
bad: ------------------

The present:
good: -------
bad: ---------------------------------------

Thus, in proportion, it would appear that there is less good and more bad as time. In truth, I actually think there is something similar to an 'indifferent' stance as well, similar to how one can believe, not believe, or disbelief in the truth of something. In that case, the present would look something like this:

good: ----------------------------------------
third: ---------------------------------------
bad: ---------------------------------------

And then, to some, they would see that third option as being bad as well to at least some degree, so then the human condition would look even worse to them, forming an "us" vs "them" mentality:

good: -------
them: ------------------------------------------------------------------

And, of course, when I speak of my believes, I do strictly refer to humanity as a whole. The world of course is not so homogeneous, as certain times in history are worse than others (can we say "Dark Ages?") as well as certain places (I think we can all agree the Middle East as a whole is fairing worse than, say, Western Europe).

Unfortunately, I have little in the way of facts to back this up, and my own life has met few hardships. I only have my stories to show that being an optomist may not be a lost cause.

The world is making progress--technology wise. No question about that. But looking at the world in general, at society, at disparity between the wealthy and impoverished, I don't believe we've made much progress at all.

Environmentally--we're getting worse and worse. In the western world, we've been polluting carelessly for decades, and have only now begun to realize the effects and make steps toward a clean environment, most notably in Europe. However, nations in Asia, such as China, are industrializing rapidly, with little attention to preserving any part of the landscape or caution to public health; it's all about production and profit, much like the Soviet Union in the past half century, and the entire Western world during the 1800s. I believe that eventually, all nations will develop pass the phase of production without regard to environment, but by then the destruction caused may already be irreversible.

The sooner we can develop "clean" energies, cold fusion, perfecting cheap and efficient solar energy, shifting to hydrogen powered automobiles.

Scientifically--Progress, no doubt. We keep advancing, discovering things about our universe, building faster P4s... Slowly, the benefits of technology are creeping into countries (India, most notably) I think, however, for scientific progress to make that next leap, the world has to get orthodox religion, for the most part, and this entire perception of "ethics" out of the way. What is "ethical?" Good karma? We should never lead countries, direct research, make war, etc. based on karma. Ethics, like the opposition to cloning (and here I'm talking about actual cloning, not the therapeutic stem cell kind) is the only major impediment to scientific progress. There are many, many problems to a feat such as creating a clone of a human, yes, but ethical aversion should not be one of them. Science should be based upon cold, hard tangible consequences and effects. So yes, genetical contamination, birth defects, weakened immunity, are ALL valid concerns that need to be absolutely solved before anything can take place, but we shouldn't shut it down, say no way, never will we even approach this frontier, simply based on ethical issues. I use cloning as an extreme example--there are huge risks and the scientific rewards are relatively small, but we should not absolutely shun certain areas of science, based solely on "ethics."

War & Peace -- What the world needs to learn is to embrace diversity. In some areas, like Europe except for the southeast, people there get along absolutely fine, despite huge differences in culture. They are unified under the European Union. In other areas, like the Middle East, those there find reason for war over religion, and in Africa, over ethnicity, and the United States find reason for war over power lust, under the pretense of liberty (Cuba) and defense (Afghanistan and Iraq) I think that the European example is the paragon of a vastly diverse area, all finding a way to coexist and support each other. But as long as people are fundamentally different, unwilling to compromise, battles will always be fought. And as long as there is a superpower, with more military might than the other half of the world, that is willing to take advantage of its superiority, there will always be unnecesary wars.

Safety -- Kind of related to the above... Here is an area where we've regressed in some areas, and improved in others. Medical advances have prolonged life, reduced the chance of sudden death by disease... in some areas. Virtually the entire heartland of Africa lies in the same state health-wise as it was a century ago. But the development of weapons--handheld automatic rifles (freely available via exploitation of the 2nd amendment, IMO), quick-strike aircraft, long-range missiles since the V2, and of course the nuclear bomb. Couple that with the willingness of terrorists to attack anyone, and their carelessness for life, both of their victims and their own, has made the world, especially in the hotspots such as the middle east and now, apparently, Russia, prone to sudden and unprovoked death. I guess we have made progress from the widespread disease and voodoo medicine of the middle ages, and extremely polluted urban environments of the 19th century, but with the advent of weapons capable of the hackneyed "mass destruction" and the formation of terrorist groups headless to the value of humabn life, safety has been steadily declining since WWI, and in a free fall for the past decade.

Economy--The disparity between the rich and powerful, and the poor and powerless, has been an everlasting problem for society. It's existed from the kings/serfs of the middle ages, the merchants and plantation owner/slaves of the colonial era, the business owners/factory workers of the industrial age, and now, that disparity has grown to a global scale. It's not a disparity between the high and low within a single society, at least not as much as the huge disparity between the well-off nations and the third-world ones. We have those starving in Africa, North Korea, and us, living in relative luxury in 1st-world countries, complaining about how poor our economy is. The capitalist path that we've been going down is the wrong one, I believe. It was/is a necessary step, to initially perpetuate the development of nations, the progress of production, but now that we are developed, rampant capitalism is past its prime. A socialist society, with a dash of capitalism, is needed to create parity between ALL peoples of the Earth. Capitalism is still needed, as an incentive for production, for progress... but at a certain point, where individual income shifts from "comfort" to "luxury," that unneeded excess (or a major fraction of it) needs to be diverted to help those that are struggling. I think sociaist utopia is the goal here... It's a long way off, and I think that as long as those that are greedy and lustful are in power, we're never going to come close to reaching that.

The World Politick & Respect for Diversity--i've already touched on this a bit in the section about war... For some, it is hard to accept those that are different, and it's prevalent throughout the world. In the Middle East, there is no acceptance of Israel. For decades in Africa, there has been an extreme form of non-toleration of different ethnicity--all those that are different must be eradicated. Here in the United States, for years there was no toleration of different government types. We still hold economic sanctions against Cuba, because they are "communist" and that is evil because everyone must be democratic. People in Cuba are much more resentful of the U.S. sanctions than they ever will be against Fidel Castro. These days, in the United States, with the influx of non-European immigrants, it's a deep and bitter homophobia against anything non-Christian. There is not so much a respect for different cultures as there is a pressure for other cultures to assimilate, at least in my experiences in the United States. And on issues such as religion, politics, and world compliance to the United States, it is pretty much convert or die.

Culture--It's degrading into uniformity. Now, nothing is homemade or even locally made anymore. From the clothes we wear, the shows we watch, the cakes that we bake from mix... it's all been consolidated into a few corporate powers, who design and package from a corporate headquarters, then translate and ship it out to the rest of the world. No matter where you buy it, from the U.S. to Europe, that Nike shoe was put together in a sweatshop somwhere between China, Taiwan, and Indonesia. Individual products have become better, yes... national news networks give us much more information about other areas of the world than our local news ever could... but the cultural diversity that made everything and everyone so different is fading away, in my opinion. I would also like to add that a perfect example of cultural consolidation would be our current Presidential race. Neither candidate seems really willing to break the mold, say what they REALLY think. They just teeter upon popular opinion, saying and doing whatever it takes to get elected, instead of saying and doing things that may be controversial, but are needed for progress.

So, is the world better, or worse? We've made improvements upon a millenium, 500 years, 150 years ago. But five decades ago... I think with the creation of new weapons and terrorist groups, and the continual rise of corporate powers, that we've gone slightly downward. Time will tell what lies ahead for the future.

[Edit]
Oo.. per request to identify ourselves and political leanings (plus it would be kinda fun to see not only what people's opinions are, but where they're coming from and what they perceive themselves to be)

Age: 16
Location: San Francisco, California
Gender: Male
Political Leanings: I guess I'm somewhat of a radical... but on a few issues, I tend to be extremely reacionary too.
Religous Leanings: Bartonism (my very own psuedo religion... based on uhm... mathematical classification of life.) But I guess you could say I'm 100% for science.

You mean like the computer, and the Internet? Those alone connected me to good people I would never otherwise have gotten to know, brought forth my passion for writing, and I believe brought me closer to God. The computer (well, gaming consoles) also have excited my imagination since I was five, and I intend to enter the video game business in hopes of doing the same for others. I don't believe I am the only example of this good, either. Even so, how about 'machines' like medical technologies, food processing, travel, education... these aren't the colliseums and baths last I checked. We've had "machines" since the wheel. It fustrates me when people speak of "technology" when they really refer to electrical devices such as the ever-popular television. Guess what? The crap that makes TV so bad isn't the machine... it's the PEOPLE. Abolishing technology isn't going to rid humanity of its wrongs, it'll only rid us of humanity (you know, lives.) Watching "The Village" is partly what started me thinking of this in the first place.



You know that "Western Civilization" has been around since the Sumerians some 4,000 years ago at least. It's mostly thanks to Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam that has made it such an influece, and of course, the people who have always carried the names of those religions to do wrong. I think Jesus made a point about that... also, the Roman Empire was around longer than 200-500 years, if you're refering to the United States, which everybody loves to compare to the Roman Empire.



And this is where we differ. I am not so arrogant as to think that my choices to follow evil at times has such power over God's will. I think humanity as a whole simply does not perceive the good in this world and the miracles God graces us, especially a number of Christians who I feel adopt the "small us versus big them" mentality. The people of Bibical times could see God's miracles, and I have a real hard time believing God took a back seat after Jesus. Yes, I believe there will be an ultimate end, but I could not tell you when, because as DogsRool said in another thread...



And I think that end will be just like a good book -- good and evil will clash, evil will appear to have the upper hand, but good does not die! It marches into Hell itself and destroys its power! But that is the optomist in me... the only thing that really gets me down about this stuff is when other people are ready to give up and believe that there is really so little they can do.

Anywhos, that is probably the extent of my ranting for this thread, and I would imagine you all understand now why I asked that second question nobody answered.

I just wanted to say thank you SD_RAKISHI for that post you made while I was typing up my previous one. I could tell you put a lot of time and thought into it, and you even took an attempt to answer the second question, yay!

Don't let this thread stop here, please. Continue to share your own thoughts, support or refute my own, etc. I posted only later in this thread in fear that my thoughts on my own question would stop this discussion. Prove me wrong

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't know what the state of the world was like in 1,000 BC, 400 AD, or even 1970 AD, so I have nothing to compare the current state of the world to. I'll just take what is given to me and be thankful for it.

/me hugs Freelancer

Regarding Entropy: I agree that the concept of entropy itself is not necessarily intrinsically evil. I was just applying the concept to the question of morality. Entropy, broadly defined, is that a system's level of disorder will always either stay the same or increase. Applied to morality, it means that the world's level of evil will always either stay the same or increase. Disorder does not spontaneously generate order, and evil does not spontaneously generate good. That's the parallel I was going for.

That said, chaos, disorder, and anarchy aren't exactly good things themselves. A world "where people obey moral law" is not anarchy in the sense of a lack of order. People are still obeying that moral law, for whatever reason (mind you, I highly doubt that in the absense of government and enforced order, people would somehow voluntarily obey some moral law. Just look at what happens every time there is a blackout, or a major storm, or some other disruption of the enforcement of law). Total chaos, meaning that each individual lives according to whatever code he sees fit, will inevitably result in the aforementioned raping, murdering, stealing, and pillaging. Not for long, however, since we humans abhor a vacuum (of order), and will work quickly to re-establish some semblance of peace and order. In any society, there will always be individuals who put their own profit ahead of others' well-being, and in the absence of order to keep those individuals in check, they will quickly run amok.

Regarding Diversity: Why do people regard diversity as such a good thing? Historically, diversity has led to wars, conflict, and general bad things. Where unity reigned, there was peace. Where diversity arose (two different peoples striving for two different goals), war and conflict was bred. SD_RAKISHI, what you're talking about isn't diversity at all -- it's unity. Unity in tolerance of differences. Having everyone on earth be united in their tolerance of one another would effectively decrease the amount of diversity in the world. Thus, there would be peace. Decreasing the diversity even more (such as, for example, doing away with all those conflicting religions) would promote even greater unity and peace.

Mind you, this is not a path I recommend we follow, since I don't think it's workable.

Regarding Technology: Just so you know, Geb, when I referred to "machines" I wasn't referring to the modern popular concept of "technology", I was referring to the same thing you were talking about. All technology, from the simplest wheel, to the crudest weapon, to the microwave oven, the computer, and the nuclear bomb, is Man's means of increasing his own power over his surroundings. Up to a point, this is ok. One of Man's strengths has always been his ingenuity. But the thing is, as I said, power corrupts. Certainly, power can be used for good, as Tolkien pointed out when Gandalf said that if he were to take the ring, he would use it for good. But the dangers of such power far outweigh its benefits. The greater your power becomes, the more fellow human beings you are able to influence by it, for good or ill. We stand at a moment in time where a single man is now able to influence every single human being on earth. He could use it for good. But all it takes is one evil man with access to that power, and he could destroy the world.

And as a side note, when referring to "Western Civilization", I'm referring mainly to Europe and the culture that arose from the old British Empire. This is the culture which has been most influenced by the Industrial Revolution and the 20th Century's technological explosion -- indeed, it has an almost symbiotic relationship with it.

Also, just to head off any remarks, I am quite aware of the irony of railing against technology while typing on what is arguably the pinnacle of technological acheivement, the computer. The problem is that, once technology becomes readily available, if it is shunned by those who realise where the path will lead, they will be sidelined and left behind. If the Americans, having develped the nuclear bomb, had realised the devastation they would unleash upon the world and scrapped the whole project, the Russians would have continued their nuclear project and conquered the world with it. We might all be having to learn Russian and work for Stalin or his successors. The progress of technology is inevitable, just like the decay of morality. My opposition to it won't stop it.

Regarding God and the End of the World: I'd just like to note that in my previous post, when talking about the effects of moral entropy, I was deliberately leaving God out of the equation, mainly for simplicity. I do believe God influences the world, and were it not for his works, humanity would have destroyed itself long ago. God is the outside influence that affects the equation -- While Evil can never naturally beget Good, God can extend his influence into the world and "insert" some Good of his own. Indeed, the whole End of the World scenario depicted in the Bible is that of Man nearly succumbing entirely to Evil, and God stepping in, destroying Evil, and restoring the world to an entirely "Good" state.

I'm not quite ready to give up on the world. I just think that we, as humans acting on our own power, will never be able to make the world "Good". Only God can do that, whether working through us, or stepping in directly.

Are you sure of that?

Castro subjucating his people and killing the intellectuals so they wouldn't rebel had nothing to do with it?

A good percentage does, at least.

The world is corrupt. True, but old news.

The ppl don't care about the ozone or the limited supply of oil or any of that crap because they don't expect to be around when it becomes a problem.

And then we've got the extreme conservationists who say we shouldn't have any children because we're already overpopulated...

JESUS ****ING CHRIST.

Next time, check your facts before opening your mouth to spew out useless garbage and lies.

11.9% of the population lives under the poverty line...

AND NOW YOU KNOW.

Seriously though, did you even stop to think about what you are saying?? if the majority of the US lived in poverty it would be a frickin third world country.

The main reason the world seems like such a bad place is the fact the world is now a "global village" if something bad happens in [insert country here] we'll here about it, when back in the day we wouldnt have. Its just that now we can see whats been going on all along, and alot of people dont seem to accept that.

Yes, yes, YES! Overlord makes the best point of them all! This one's over, folks!

(...we wish...)

Overlord makes a good point. I do think that things tend to stay the same (the more things change...), corrupt and evil as those things may be. Change happens so slowly as to be nearly imperceptible.

The difference is that, now that we're a global village, not only are we aware of evil happenings in far off lands, we can now cause evil happenings in far off lands, due to the rise in technology. Man's area of influence has expanded to encompass the whole world, for good or ill. Mostly for ill, IMHO. I have no faith in the goodwill of mankind.

Sorry, blu. I didn't know this was a bad topic But I do agree Overlord made a good point

As for Krig's resposes... well, there ain't much I can say. I agree with most of what you said, we've just apparently came to different conclusions :p

No, entropy isn't 'evil' at all. Entropy has nothing at all to do with evil. At all. Ever.

Entropy is used in thermodynamics as a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work. Your statement that entropy does not decrease is correct, that is the second law of thermodynamics, but this refers to the cycles of motion. There is no "good" or "evil" in this law. Morality has nothing to do with science.

I really hate it when people take sound scientific concepts and "apply morality" to them. It completely negates any scientific value they might once have had. Moreso when they actually use those the specific scientific terms to describe their completely unrelated concepts. It just makes subjective 'moral' statements look like scientific fact to the layman and it exploits scientific misunderstanding.

I think Newton's third law of motion is the most frequent victim of this. It reads in completeness "If a body A exerts a force upon a body B, then body B exerts an equal and oppose force of the same type upon body A". It is often shortened to "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". This serves to describe Newton's third law in a very simple way, but is fundementally insufficient for any scientific value.
People often "apply morality" to the shortened statement, to suggest that for every "good" deed that is done, an "evil" deed must be done to 'balance' it. Newton, both as a physicist and a Christian fundementalist, would be the first to tell you that that is complete nonsense.

Much like your notion that "evil" will always increase over time.

Oh wah. It's a metaphor. We're not going to say that a tornado or a hurricane is evil either, but it's still a bad thing. Also, I've never heard the use of the third law being applied like that... I can't see why it would either.

As for evil increasing over time... well, I agree with you there, but for different reasons

Wanna bet? http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9484,00.html

so is 12% considered a large chunk of people?

......dude, show a little class. That was unnecessary. Had you not blown a gasket, you would have seen me continually ask him questions about his statements to the point where he would either have to justify his statement in more detail, realize he's wrong and say so, or realize he's wrong and walks away in silence so he doesn't have to swallow his pride in admitting he was wrong. It's far better to to expose any possible ignorance or assumptions a person makes by forcing them to undermine themselves than to blow up at them.

Well, I don't think microprocessor technology was exactly the topic, but anyway...I was being sarcastic, Obi.

I think the statistic I remember might have included more than just people in poverty, like people who make less than $17,000 a year (or whatever the minimum is).

I don't remember because I learned it in school and I don't remember anything I learn in school. I just remember some 40% of the population was a victim of something.

Well Krig... I get what you mean--the problem is diversity. But how do we go about solving the problem? Correct me if I got the wrong perception, but it seems like you're suggesting that the sooner we assimilate into a uniform, "world culture" many problems would be solved because we wouldn't have any differences to fight about. Although I agree that this may be true, it completely strips away the uniqueness of cultures, that which makes people from the other side of the world so different, and ultimately, what keeps the world innovative and interesting We shouldn't be assimilating into a uniform culture, we should be learning to accept, respect, and embrace the cultures of others.

Uhmmm... let's see... also a point about Cuba. So yes... I was hasty and generalizing about it. And I guess I would also apply the same point to pre-war Iraq. So, despite atrocities that were commited/claimed to be committed before, let's look at the current situation. In the past DECADE in Cuba or Iraq.... what's happened? Neither has been commiting terrible atrocities, murdering people, invading other countries, which is why I think that having economic sanctions in Cuba is way past its expiration date--it's simply not necessary anymore, especially when we have a military base already on the island. For pre-war Iraq, I would have argued that sanctions, given the recent Gulf War (-20 years is recent, I guess.) would be good, but invading the country for the sole purpose of overthrowing the leader wasn't right. Maybe during the gulf war 13 years ago, but you can't let the guy go free, and then more than a decade later go and invade him, and incarcerate the guy retroactively...

argh post later

No, the worrying thing about poverty in America is not so much its magnitude, but rather that is has been increasing over the last 4 years, as well as people lacking health insurance. I think a third of all Americans don't have any health insurance. It also compares very badly to other industrial nations, as America has a much stronger economy than western European nations, but still has a higher rate of poverty. The American welfare system also compares very badly.






(Yes, I realise the "child poverty" big is just blatant emotional-appeal type stuff)

What do they mean by Child Poverty? Is it children living on their own who make under the poverty level? Or children living with a family which makes under the poverty level? Or children living with a deceently-off family, but the children's allowance is under the poverty level?

Well, here's a site with the lyrics to a song with amusingly portray the state of our nation.

Be warned, the lyrics aren't for the easily-offended.

http://birdherder.com/mt/archives/2004/09/danger_will_rob.html

But yeah, that's just me pointing to an amusingly cynical portrayal of things in order to lighten the mood.

*hides*

Yeah whatever dude, I think it was totally necessary...The guys post just reeked of ignorance and things like that really piss me off. As for me lacking class, are you sure about that? Your the one that's complaining because you didn't get to make an even bigger fool of this guy.

Now... about poverty...

It's a problem, no doubt... all over the world, in every region of every nation, it exists as a problem, a glaring detriment and obstacle to society, even... In areas in Africa and Asia, poverty is to the extent where people don't even have enough for one person to eat... and that ration is supposed to sustain an entire family.

In our United States, NOWHERE do we have poverty to that extent. Poverty here is to the point where it's "Oh man, i can't pay my cable TV bill this month." I think the figure before was mentioned at $17,000... not enough to live in comfort, but depending on which part of the country you live in, and if you're living alone, you could definitely get by with that much. Poverty here should not be a problem--our economy and resources are hundreds of times stronger than those in 3rd world countries, and any of those living in "poverty" are the result of financial inrresponsibility, laziness (I never got able-bodied homeless people begging for money in the streets... get your arse up and find a job!), and high inflation (does anybody else think that inflation here is actually a LOT more than the feds are letting on? Just judging by consumer prices for various things.)

What do people think of a world socialist society? A bit unrealistic, at least anywhere near our time, but who else thinks that it is ultimately the final goal that we are striving for... and that human advancement should really be measured by how far our society is from reaching that goal.

The world has debated the merits of socialism and communism for the past one hundred years and found them somewhat lacking. Show me a real socialist or communist state that has not devolved into autocratic government, economic stagnation and widespread malaise. Its failure to provide for the basic needs of a society and its excellence at restricting basic human rights have rendered it doubly wanting.

It's unrealistic for a damn good reason - no one really wants it.

Back in the day, you could take the virginity of a 14 year old girl and her father would give you, land, cattle and/or gold.

Now, you get sloppy 17ths from an 18 year old, and all you get is an angry glare from the father and the clap.

Case closed.

Regarding Entropy:

As do I. Science is the branch of philosophy that deals with the strictly natural world of testable, repeatable things. Imputing morality onto something like gravity, for instance, would be silly and non-sensical. Which is why I deliberately avoided doing so. Entropy as it relates to thermodynamics is a strictly morally neutral thing. It's only when you use the broader definition of the word "entropy", meaning disorder and chaos in general, that it begins to take on moral implications.

As Geb said, the comparison to entropy was simply an analogy that I hoped would make my theory a little more clear. A theory which, mind you, I am prepared to drop if somebody would prove it wrong -- I mostly came up with it on the spot, anyway.

Regarding Diversity:
We seem to be doing a lot of agreeing, SD_RAKISHI, for people with opposing opinions. I agree, a completely uniform "world culture" would be a bland and boring thing, devoid of life and inspiration. It could also be far too easily corrupted, without the usual checks and balances that diversity brings. But that's the problem -- we can either choose diversity and conflict, or we can choose uniformity and peace. I'm not really advocating either -- just stating our dilemma. I suspect the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

Even tolerance can have its pitfalls. Tolerance in moderation is a good thing. But like anything else, when taken to extremes, it can be highly detrimental. What happens when we begin to "tolerate" immoral acts simply because a "diverse" culture accepts them as normal? Take the Taliban's treatment of women for example, which from what I have heard, bordered on slavery. Should that have been tolerated in the name of diversity? Clearly, the majority of people would say no, although the methods advocated to solve the problem would vary widely. Or what about the genocide in the Sudan? Theoretically, a case could be made that this is a cultural difference that we should tolerate rather than interfere in. Tolerance, unmoderated by a concern for morality, can be just as bad as similarly unmoderated conflict. Again, as with Uniformity and Diversity, I suspect the best course lies somewhere in the middle. It's *where* in the middle that generates so much debate, I guess.

Regarding A Global Socialist Society:
Wouldn't a World Socialist Society be, like, the ultimate in uniformity? That's always been the problem with socialism and communism. Too much uniformity means that it's easy for a dictator of some kind to take over, and if one thing goes wrong with the society, there's nothing to take its place, no backup plan, no competitor waiting in the wings to take over. The strength of capitalism is its diversity -- if one thing fails, there's another to take its place. Mind you, diversity is also capitalism's weakness -- it breeds conflict. In both scenarios, uniformity and diversity, the little guy gets screwed. Actually, so do the big guys, in the end.

So what's the solution to all this? Heck, I don't know. I'm a pessimist. Maybe there is no solution. Personally, I've always liked benevolent dictatorships. My dream is to one day discover some tiny island in the Pacific that no-one's ever found before, declare it a sovereign nation, and declare myself absolute monarch. It would be great.

This is where the concepts of "right" and "wrong" become utterly ethnocentric.
What is acceptable in your culture may not be so in other cultures, and 'morality' is entirely dependant upon culture.
In the same way that you view the Taliban treatment of women as 'wrong', they would view the liberal western attitute to women as 'wrong'. Is your 'wrong' more valid than their 'wrong'?

Should you tolerate it? Yes, yes you should. A few hundred years ago, attitudes to women in western Europe were more or less exactly the same. But over time, society developed and different attitutes to women arose. The way I see it, Middle Eastern society is in many ways similar to European society a few hundred years ago. But in the same way that Europe developed and grew on its own, so must the Middle East.
Trying to 'accelerate' their cultural growth, that is not a good idea, that will not work. Their society must develop and grow by itself, and they must reach conclusions that apply to them. Things that work in the West will not necessarily work in the Middle East, and they may well reach very different conclusions to us.
If the women of the Middle East want more liberal attitutes to women, it is up to the women of the Middle East to achieve it. The question is, do they?
While you might be 'horrified' at the treatment of women, perhaps they are not. Happiness is entirely cultural too, and perhaps they are perfectly happy in acheiving their gender roles, in a way that Western women would not be. Perhaps the rampant materialism that signifies happiness in the West is not the same as the happiness that is signified there.

You were trying to piss him off and make him feel stupid and foolish. I was trying to show him how erroneous his statement was by making him question himself. If he questions himself(or even if you show a measure of politeness towards him) he is a lot more likely to digress than if I were to take a **** on him like you did. All that causes is people to be spiteful and stick to their views even more zealously.

From what I can tell, Mort, the thought of "equal treatment" is not so much as ethnocentric as you would lead it to be. There is a line between rights within a culture and human rights... the examples given were not, last I checked, the view of one culture. Nowhere either did Krig say to supplant their own beliefs with our own, nor offer any plan of action to do so. How we advance upon the state of the world will come out of communication and understanding with each others' culture, not just leave ourselves be and say "we'll leave each other to our differences." I don't care if this is sappy or not -- we all have our differences, and we should embrace those differences, but we should also embrace our unity as a human race.

It's figuring out what exactly makes us human that's we're all conflicting about.